As the Conservative Party face what seems certain to be a stonking electoral defeat, MPs have changed their language from that of winning to avoiding a Labour 'supermajority'.

Many Tories appear to accept there is no way they can win when Britain goes to the polls on Thursday, but are instead urging people to ensure there's an effective opposition to Keir Starmer and his party.

It's important to note that in the British political system, the term 'supermajority' doesn't have any specific meaning.

In the United States, for example, some votes require a two-thirds majority to pass - 67 out of 100 senators - such as impeachment proceedings against a sitting president.

Under the Westminster system, votes are carried by a simple majority so in purely constitutional terms there is no difference between a majority of one or of 200, which some polls suggest Labour could get close to.

However, there are some impacts associated with a 'supermajority'.

Funding given to opposition parties is proportional to how many seats they attain in the Commons, meaning the more seats Labour take the less the non-governing parties will be allocate.

In addition, a larger majority staves off the threat of backbench rebellions to legislation which is controversial.

To win a majority a party needs to take 326 of the 650 seats, though in practice the total is lower as Sinn Féin, who currently hold seven, do not take up their seats at Westminster.

David Cameron won a small majority in 2015 and lost a key vote on the Brexit referendum in 2015 when 27 of his MPs rebelled to defeat it.

With a majority of more than 100, such defeats are far less likely. Tony Blair returned a majority of 167 in 2001 which helped ensure a 2003 vote on the invasion of Iraq passed despite a record rebellion of 139, though that vote also had the support of the opposition.

Do you think a huge Labour win will have an effect on democracy? Vote in our poll to have your say.