Could the next Labor majority exceed 1997?

[mileslunn]

Possible but my guess would be no.  Generally in British politics, opposition tends to poll higher in between elections than what they get on election day.  I am not suggesting Tories will win, that is while not impossible, a real long shot.  Maybe a 10% chance and even if Tories are largest party, unless it is similar to 2017 they most likely get defeated on King's speech.  Reason why I think it will be smaller than 1997 are the following

1.  Sunak is a safe pair of hands unlike Truss so people who always vote Tory but feel party has overstayed its welcome will probably come home as most of them still mistrust Labour despite Starmer's move closer to centre so feel strong opposition will keep Labour on its toes and less likely more activist wing (your Bergeron's, Long-Bailey, Abbott, McDonnell types) have too much influence. 

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely

3.  Starmer is unlike Blair a boring and dull type.  Doesn't scare people like Corbyn did, but doesn't excite people like Blair did.  He is somewhat like Biden who won in 2020, but not as big a landslide as Obama did in 2008 and Obama was more like Blair in young, charismatic, and excited people.

While a lot can change, I think a landslide bigger than 1997 is possible but unlikely even if Labour wins by bigger popular vote margin as vote much less efficient (in 1997 they weren't getting North Korean like margins in some urban progressive areas like they are now).  Even a Labour majority I think is far from certain.  Only reason I feel somewhat optimistic on their chances of a majority is thanks to SNP problems as Scotland won't go Tory so SNP declining will help Labour there. 

[mileslunn]

Once upon a time it was much more cut and tried - Labour wanted nationalization of banks and heavy industry and wanted to quit NATO and the Liberals were just a bunch of middle class do-gooders (mostly secondary school teachers) who steered clear of anything radical - but now in 2023 the differences, are pretty nuanced...

I think largely true although in some rural southern constituencies and posh areas of London, people can stomach voting Liberal Democrat but Labour is a bridge too far.  Liberals in Canada not much different than NDP today yet there are loads of places that will go Liberal but if NDP main alternative go Conservative (i.e. 905 belt, wealthy urban areas) so I imagine some of that in UK.  Most voters don't pay too close attention to policy detail so party brand and historical image matter a fair bit. 

At same time where Liberal Democrats could come in key is if Labour wins a narrow majority.  The more left wing elements of party may threaten to vote down budget or bills unless goes further to left and I could see Labour turning to LibDems or using this threat to keep those types in line. 

While would support most, I think there are a few areas of difference

1.  On tax policy, I think LibDems for mansion tax but against wealth tax.  Also for additional rate a hike of 1 or 2% they would probably support, but if Labour runs in putting it back to 50% like was in 2010 or even higher, LibDems likely vote that down.  46% or 47% probably could get away with and maybe 48%.  Mind you I don't think Starmer will introduce a wealth tax or raise additional rate that much if at all. 

2.  On nationalization front, probably okay with bringing back rail into public ownership as long as done by not renewing contracts as they expire.  But any further nationalization likely opposes.  Although to be fair only other one Starmer has proposed is creating a state run energy company (not nationalizing existing) to compete with the big six and depending on cost LibDems may oppose if too costly.

3.  One area may go to left of Labour is immigration.  I believe LibDems most pro-immigration party so if Labour plans crackdown here in hung parliament may have to turn to Tories.  Many traditional red wall voters want less immigration although younger urban types fine with higher levels but since former constituencies more at risk than latter, wouldn't be surprised if Labour runs on reducing immigration like they did in 2010 and 2015. 

4.  I believe Labour wants to tax private schools and I could see LibDems opposing that.

5.  Labour has in past opposed NHS contracting out while LibDems are more in middle here.  Don't embrace it like Tories, but don't oppose it either.

I think if Corbyn were still leader, LibDems would oppose many of his ideas, but with Starmer much less.

[mileslunn]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party suggest, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

Wasn't in past more identification as one was Tory because of where they lived, class and profession and Labour for same reason.  Whereas now more ideology as you have fewer wets than in past and fewer blue collar populists so some change.  But it is true UK doesn't have near the polarization like US does.  In US a lot hate those of other party with a passion and many will always vote a certain way no matter what and if dislike their chosen party, they just stay home and not vote at all, not switch parties.  In some ways more like rest of Europe where you are seeing more parties and combined totals of traditional much lower than historically the case. 

Still like US you do have echo chambers at least when it comes to what media people read but not on television like you do in US.  After all most who read Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Daily Express, Times vote Conservative while most who read Guardian, Daily Mirror, and Independent vote Labour.  Financial Times and Economist somewhat more diverse and a lot there vote LibDem as many who read both traditional Tories but voted Remain unlike others mentioned who mostly not only vote Tory but voted Leave in Brexit referendum. 

[mileslunn]

(in 1997 they weren't getting North Korean like margins in some urban progressive areas like they are now).

What on Earth are you talking about? Labour majorities in constituencies vaguely matching that description were generally extremely large in 1997 as well. What was unusual about 2019 is that they remained so despite everything else, but then they'll certainly swing a lot less next time around; much as the swings to Labour were weak in the South Wales Valleys constituencies in 1997 as they'd already hit landslide conditions in them under local boy Kinnock.

True although in 2017, Labour margins in your urban core areas were generally bigger than 1997 despite losing overall.  There were more Labour 70%+ seats in 2017 than 1997.

[mileslunn]

And to be fair to him he has made Labour seem acceptable to a lot of voters who voted Tory in the last election to prevent a Labour gov.

Which is another way of saying: if Labour could have done as well as it did w/*Corbyn* as leader, maybe it's a bigger voter tent than some give credit for.  Or, the kind of big tent that New Labour under Blair represented might not have been simply a fluke of the moment.

I think Labour could have won 2017 with a better leader but that was only close as May ran a disastrous campaign.  If she ran a decent one, results would have looked more like 2019 than 2017.  2019 I think was unwinnable due to Brexit but a better leader could have probably kept Tories to either a bare majority thus wouldn't have lasted the full term or another hung parliament with Tories being largest party.  If Tories + DUP less than half, would have forced another vote on EU membership and possible Brexit cancelled.