Why were the Conservatives (UK) unable to win a majority in 2010?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but it was also partly down to Labour narrowly holding several northern/midlands seats that the Tories could have won with a campaign more targeted towards them (think Bolton West, Middlesbrough South, Newcastle-under-Lyme etc.) and less towards metropolitan liberals.

Potentially, although it is worth noting that Labour in 2010 had an image and a platform that was much more aligned with the median voter in those sort of constituencies than under Corbyn.

[Former President tack50]

So.......what would Labour 53% Tories 25% in 2024 look like?

(we can dream)

From the same site I used for the other projections:

Lab 435
Con 94
SNP 49
Lib Dems 46

So Lib Dems+SNP would narrowly beat the tories interestingly

And for fun yet another swing to 63% Labour, 15% Conservative leaves the conservatives with only 6 seats lol (Boston and Skegness, South Holland and the Deepings, Maldon, Castle Point, Christchurch and North Dorset)

Lib Dems on 58, SNP on 42 and Labour at a whopping 520

[CumbrianLefty]

So.......what would Labour 53% Tories 25% in 2024 look like?

(we can dream)

From the same site I used for the other projections:

Lab 435
Con 94
SNP 49
Lib Dems 46

So Lib Dems+SNP would narrowly beat the tories interestingly

And for fun yet another swing to 63% Labour, 15% Conservative leaves the conservatives with only 6 seats lol (Boston and Skegness, South Holland and the Deepings, Maldon, Castle Point, Christchurch and North Dorset)

Lib Dems on 58, SNP on 42 and Labour at a whopping 520

And the last named would almost certainly actually go LibDem in those circumstances

[IceAgeComing]

According to Electoral Calculus (which isn't perfect but frankly at that point no models are:

Lab: 522
SNP: 52
Con: 27
LD: 27
PC: 2
Grn: 1
Oth: 1
NI: 18

Labour Majority 394

The other would be in East Devon; where Claire Wright, a prominent Independent councillor, ran the Tories close in 2017 and did decently in 2019 as well.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think we can assume that in the event of an absolute wipeout, UNS might give broadly accurate numbers overall but it would be useless for individual seats. In the event of a Labour landslide, there are seats where the Tories got 60% last time which are much more vulnerable than seats where they got 45%, simply because the Tory voters in the latter are much less likely to ever consider voting Labour than Tory voters in the former.

[DC Al Fine]

I think we can assume that in the event of an absolute wipeout, UNS might give broadly accurate numbers overall but it would be useless for individual seats. In the event of a Labour landslide, there are seats where the Tories got 60% last time which are much more vulnerable than seats where they got 45%, simply because the Tory voters in the latter are much less likely to ever consider voting Labour than Tory voters in the former.

Yes, the Canadian example confirms this. In wipeouts like the PC's/NDP in 1993 and the Liberals/Bloc Quebecois in 2011, the survivors are a mix of ultra-safe seats, special local factors, and complete flukes.

Examples:

In 1993, one of only two Tory winners was in Saint John, a seat the Tories only won by 5% the previous election. Their candidate was the extremely popular mayor of Saint John and they actually increased their vote share slightly despite a 27% swing against them nationally.

In 2011, Bloc MP Maria Mourani managed to survive despite winning her seat by less than 1% in the previous election, thanks to a peculiar three way split.

[CumbrianLefty]

In 2011, Bloc MP Maria Mourani managed to survive despite winning her seat by less than 1% in the previous election, thanks to a peculiar three way split.

Liberals narrowly trailing in 2008 and NDP a poor 4th then - but a close second in 2011.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think we can assume that in the event of an absolute wipeout, UNS might give broadly accurate numbers overall but it would be useless for individual seats. In the event of a Labour landslide, there are seats where the Tories got 60% last time which are much more vulnerable than seats where they got 45%, simply because the Tory voters in the latter are much less likely to ever consider voting Labour than Tory voters in the former.

Yes, the Canadian example confirms this. In wipeouts like the PC's/NDP in 1993 and the Liberals/Bloc Quebecois in 2011, the survivors are a mix of ultra-safe seats, special local factors, and complete flukes.

Examples:

In 1993, one of only two Tory winners was in Saint John, a seat the Tories only won by 5% the previous election. Their candidate was the extremely popular mayor of Saint John and they actually increased their vote share slightly despite a 27% swing against them nationally.

In 2011, Bloc MP Maria Mourani managed to survive despite winning her seat by less than 1% in the previous election, thanks to a peculiar three way split.

Oh, you'd absolutely get flukes and local factors. But it's not just that. If there was a ten point swing to us nationally, it would have much less impact in well-off rural seats with no industrial heritage, because people there have never voted Labour even when they've utterly lost faith with the Tories. But it would likely mean much larger swings to us in places like urban south Essex, because those areas are packed full of swing voters who have a love/hate relationship with Labour.

[DaWN]

Can we just stop for a moment and appreciate the hilarity of UNS presenting us with Labour winning 65% of the vote nationwide but still losing most of the central belt to the SNP (which would not happen, Scotland may have different patterns but it does not vote in a vacuum, but we can still appreciate the hilarity)

[CumbrianLefty]

How the SNP managed to regain their iron grip on Scotland at the last GE, after having it seriously weakened by both Tories and Labour in 2017, is something that I have barely seen pondered since then at all. Was it really (as in England and Wales) majorly about Brexit?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Given that a substantial proportion of Central Belt residents have shown themselves willing to vote either Labour or SNP depending on the circumstances, I suspect the fact that we were about as popular as chlamydia also needs to be taken into account. They may have voted different ways in the referendum, but some of those going Labour '17-SNP '19 were motivated by the same things as those who went Labour '17-Brexit Party '19 in northern England.

[Blair]

I always assumed it was because unionist tactical voting was at a record high in 2017 & the unpopularity of Boris Johnson certainly dragged down some of the Scottish Tories (they were always the group who hated Boris the most & expected to be back down to 1 in Scotland)

With regards to Labour I always assumed 2017 in Scotland saw a perfect tide; record high student voting, white traditional voters not being completely repelled & a freedom to vote how you wanted. I don't believe it was solely Brexit (apples & oranges I know but remain voters generally came back quite heavily during the campaign)

Again this is the type of thing I'd like to see polling on because it's just my own assumptions & snippets I've heard

[Don Vito Corleone]

So it appears, reading through some of the responses on this thread, that Labour was very fortunate with their 258 seats in 2010. Given how bleak things looked for Labour even a year before the election, I would have to agree.

[CumbrianLefty]

It was at the upper end of expectations at the time, certainly.