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

[CumbrianLefty]

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.

was 1987 considered a landslide , as the Tories didnt even win 380 seats

A majority of (just) over a hundred seats, so yes it generally is.

As are the slightly lower majorities in 1966 and 2019 by quite a few.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think 1983 was more bleak because even during the most crushing Labour leads between 1992 and 2003, the Tories' position in second place was never seriously under threat.

Was the 2nd position for Labor (in terms of seats, not in the popular vote) ever under threat in 1983 though?

Sure, if those polls with the Alliance at 50% had materialized they probably get a majority, but given how a 2 point defeat in the popular vote (vs Labour) turned into a 209-23 deficit in terms of seats; and combined with how Tory/Lib Dem marginals are a lot more common than Labour/Lib Dem ones; could the Alliance ever have hoped to come 2nd in terms of seats?

"Probably?" They'd almost certainly get a 1931 style result. Having a non-concentrated vote is a major problem when you're in the 20s in a three-party contest under FPTP, but at 50% it becomes a major benefit. Neither Labour nor the Tories would have had the same scale of landslide at 50%.

I mean, I know swingometers can get quite broken with massive shifts, but using one and inserting the infamous Alliance 50.5%, Labor 23.5%, Tories 23% poll into a modern day one (obviously there is no 1983 swingometer lying around); you do indeed get a massive landslide (496 LD; 75 Lab, 34 SNP, 22 Con)

However, that seems to also have been an outlier. Inserting the much more common average of 43% Alliance, 29% Labour, 27% Conservatives instead gives you a hung parliament with the Lib Dems only barely as the largest party; despite the a 14 point lead: 234 LD, 214 Labour, 130 Conservative, 46 SNP.

Granted this has to all be taken with extreme amounts of caution as I am using modern day swingometers, which already break enough when trying to guess a modern day election with huge swings, let alone one in the 80s.

Still, I don't think the Alliance was ever going to win in terms of seats? Obviously at their peak sure they would have, but even if they had managed to beat Labour by a massive 8 or 9 points (getting a result like 42% Con, 35% All, 17% Labour; I doubt the Alliance would have taken 2nd place in terms of seats.

(Indeed inserting such a result into a modern tool gives you 124 seats for Labour compared to 66 for the Lib Dems)

They almost certainly would have been the second group in the HoC on *those* figures, and probably quite comfortably too. It would have been the end of the Labour party as we had known it, for sure.

(indeed, being just 7% behind the Tories means the latter would have dropped seats to them too)