A lot of people said the same about the majority that Boris won in 2019. Look where that ended up. At the end of the day, party unity / disunity is more relevant than the size of the majority.It does matter.
A 200 majority gives him absolute carte blange, there will never be a large enough opposing faction within his own party. A majority of 10 means there absolutely will. It makes a huge difference.
Anyway, the point is: constitutionally the size of the majority is irrelevant. A party with a majority of 10 that has perfect unity still has carte blanche. A party with a majority of 100+ that is fractured might not.
We saw the Tories over the last 5 years or so shelve a host of legislation and/or modify it significantly off the back of significant fracturing that resulted in Sunak having to flip-flop from appeasing the right wing or centrist elements in the party, because those factions had the numbers to cause him headaches. A notional majority of 80 meant a faction of at least 41 (just 11.2% of their total seat count) could be a problem - and we saw exactly that play out.
Odds are that Labour will get a much larger majority than 80. And you're right ... as the majority increases, the size of any dissenting faction within Labour would need to be larger to create problems for Starmer. But it would still be a minority faction within Labour that could overturn the majority (with help from unity on the opposition benches). The reality is, Labour looks like a far more unified party than the Tories have been. I don't think we'll see factionalism leading to parliamentary bottlenecks to anywhere near the extent we saw it over the last 5 years.
Last edited: