How bad was the 2019 election?

It’s often been said, by political commentators and in Labour Party propaganda, that the 2019 election was the worst result for Labour for 80 years. Is this true?

Up to a point, it is. But only if you limit the argument to the number of seats won UK-wide. In 2019 Labour won 202 seats, which was less than in any election since 1935 (154 seats). But if you look at the share of the vote, you get a different picture. 2019 (32.1%) was better than 2015 (30.4%). 2010 (29.0%), 1987 (30.8%) or 1983 (27.0%).

Of course, in the end it is the number of seats that is important – but if you want to understand the background you need to look at vote share as well. There is one other factor, often ignored, which is the collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland after 2010. In 2010 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland; in 2015 that went down to just 1. So we need to look at what happened in England. If we do that, we see that in 2017 Labour’s share of the vote (41.9%) was the highest since 1997 (43.9%). It went down in 2019 to 33.9%, which was still the highest (apart from 2017) since 2005 (35.5%). In terms of seats, in 2019 Labour won 179 in England which was more than in 1983 (148) or 1987 (155).

As an aside, when looking at the opinion polls showing Labour on around 40%, it’s worth remembering 1951. In terms of vote share, this was Labour’s best result post-war (48.8%, UK wide), but the Conservatives ‘won’ the election with 321 seats to Labour’s 295.

3 thoughts on “How bad was the 2019 election?”

  1. I think this analysis ignores the effect of third (and fourth) parties. In 2017 and 2019 there were a lot of disillusioned Lib Dems and general ABT voters around (I’m one of them) who voted Labour with no great enthusiasm in the absence of any realistic alternative. Compared to previous elections 2017 and 2019 (in England at least) were largely two-horse races, so the vote share of the two front-runners naturally held up.

    Raw vote share is a bit of a pointless measure anyway. Losing a football match 4-3 is still losing.

    I know you admire him, but you have to admit that Jeremy Corbyn was a divisive figure. For every committed left-winger or idealistic youngster he enthused, there was a floating voter he put off who stayed at home, or voted Tory (and they’re the ones you really need to convince to win under FPTP). He was an absolute gift to Tory propagandists and the rightwing press.

    He’s doubtless an honourable man and personally I liked lots of his policies, but he was political Marmite. Starmer, for all his compromises (and I think he’s been over-cautious), is going to win an election today, something Corbyn never managed. Unfortunately winning elections requires you to appeal to more than just your base.

    For a true measure of Corbyn’s “popularity”, watch the Red Wall seats return to Labour this election.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for these comments, which raise a number of points.

      1. Minor parties. My analysis was intended to consider the Labour vote/seats rather than the reasons. I considered the SNP . as the effect was so marked. With the LibDems, It’s not obvious. Their vote share collapsed in 2015 (not 2017), from 23% to 7.9%, or from 57 seats to 8 (UK wide). Presumably as a reaction to them putting the Conservatives in power in 2010 and supporting their policies in the coalition. The data tells me nothing very obvious about what happened to those votes.
      2. Vote share. Obviously the number of seats is more important, but if you go around saying 2019 was such a bad result, you need to think about what you mean.
      3. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn was divisive. That’s what you expect if you put forward a genuine radical alternative set of policies. But those of us who were involved in the 2017 campaign remeber the enthusiasm that was created by someone who was recognised as being an honest and genuine politician who was clearly motivated by his ideals rather than being on the make. And 3 million more people voted Labour that year than in 2015 – denying the Conservatives an overall majority. With better backing from the Labour establishment, that election could have been won.
      4. The myth of the ‘Red Wall’. It wasn’t Corbyn that lost the red wall. By 2019 it didn’t exist. Labour’s share of the vote in those seats had been declining steadily since the Blair years, which reflects Blair’s policy of ignoring those places in favour of ‘Worcester woman’ and similar concepts. Taking you core support for granted to try to attract voters in other areas can work for a while (and did for Blair) but ultimately you pay the price. However, there was one election when the decline in the red wall vote was reversed, which was 2017, under Jeremy Corbyn, See my earlier post about the red wall.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment