Which parties future looked more bleak: Labour in 1983 or Tories in 2001

[IceAgeComing]

I'd argue the 2001 Tories actually.  In 1997 they suffered their worst loss since universal suffrage, and although the Blair government was still popular I think there was still a feeling that, despite what the polls were saying, a Hague-led Tory party with a YOUNG FRESH LEADER and running a campaign based around Europe would gain at least some seats in the election - after all they had to; especially since that although the Blair government wasn't hated it wasn't loved and there was a possibility of getting people to vote against it.  Instead what happened was another Labour landslide, the Tories basically were even on seats (a net gain of 2 or something silly; the Lib Dems did much better) and, as the hideously low turnout shows, this wasn't because people were flocking to vote for Blair again; and it was the Liberals that really gained.  After that election the party spent a few years thrashing around going nowhere until IDS was booted and they began to build again - but even in 2005 it was the Liberals who were the main gainers and some of the Tory seats that they really shouldn't have lost in 01 (South Dorset comes to mind) they didn't gain back.  Also consider that the 2001 Labour campaign was, well, middling bar John Prescott, the people's champion, punching someone mid campaign.

In 1983 there was a litany of reasons that Labour could give for their loss and while the feeling was that the party was a mess and would take a few years to sort out.  1979 wasn't a landslide by any means; the government lost a fair few votes in 1983 to a split opposition and that gave Labour a clear route to regain lost support.  1987 is really the true comparison here: despite a good Labour campaign and a terrible Tory won Labour gained back very few seats and it was another Tory landslide - indeed Labour also went backwards in a few places, notably London.