UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[EPG]

It is unusual for the UK Labour Party to win power in general.

In the last hundred years, they have won a working majority that lasted throughout the parliamentary term in only five out of 25 elections. The Conservatives did so ten times, and won overall majorities an extra three times but took smaller parties into government regardless. Labour won three minorities and three unworkably-small majorities that required another election or Liberal support after a few years. The final case is the current government, the first time Conservatives went into government with a minority of seats since the days of their Liberal Unionist allies.

Five is a very small data set, but it is striking that Tony Blair accounts for the majority of effective, single-party Labour government. Therefore, do not underestimate what it takes for Labour to win a majority in the UK.

[Vega]

I doubt we'll ever see a party hold power for more than 10 years.

[afleitch]

The problem now being short of a majority, it's having to cobble together a coalition. We 'know' that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have had continuing talks about what's on the agenda for 2015-2020 should they need to team up again, so much so that it's quite possible to rule out a Lib Dem coalition with anyone else. It's just there's no one else left. Labour, and I'm being half serous, half not here, would much rather go into a coalition with the DUP than the SNP; they detest each other. A deal with the SNP allows what's left of Labour in Scotland to wither and die and also sow seeds of resentment in England. Which suits the SNP. The secret is, and it should hopefully be obvious now, is that independence for Scotland will not happen by another referendum but by mutual consent at a parliamentary level; Scotland may have to allowed to drift off in order to restore some resemblance of normality in the rest of the UK if things continue as they are now.

[Vega]

Are there any circumstances under which the SNP would start to falter and wither? Or will it be the de-facto party in Scotland now for many years?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the last hundred years, they have won a working majority that lasted throughout the parliamentary term in only five out of 25 elections. The Conservatives did so ten times, and won overall majorities an extra three times but took smaller parties into government regardless. Labour won three minorities and three unworkably-small majorities that required another election or Liberal support after a few years. The final case is the current government, the first time Conservatives went into government with a minority of seats since the days of their Liberal Unionist allies.

This is true but deceptive. Labour was not a contender for power for the first two decades of its existence (and was not really organised as a national force until Arthur Henderson's overhaul of the Party in 1917/18). It was a serious electoral force during the interwar years but what can be fairly described as bad luck (compounded by problems with factionalism and also an over-reliance on its charismatic and photogenic leader) meant that it only held power for a handful of years. By way of example, had Labour lost the 1929 election (has there ever been a worse year to win an election?) it would likely have won any and all elections in the 1930s.

Moving on to the postwar decades, Labour's majority in 1950 was small but would have been workable for longer than it was had the government not been crippled by factional disputes. Labour was then very unlucky to lose in 1951 (when, famously, it polled the most votes but lost anyway) and would spend the majority of the decade embroiled in factional infighting. The 1955 and 1959 elections, despite substantial Tory majorities, were both closely contested.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001, while Blair was unpopular by 2005.

[Vega]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001, while Blair was unpopular by 2005.

But in 1997 and 2001 they did have a monkey in a suit....

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001, while Blair was unpopular by 2005.

But in 1997 and 2001 they did have a monkey in a suit....

No. They had a Tory in a red tie. Which is why Blair won how he won and Brown lost how he lost.

[You kip if you want to...]

On the SNP and Sturgeon, all I'd say is that somebody else also famously said they'd never go in with the Tories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVIJBxZruz8

[afleitch]

For the record I'm voting SNP in the GE (while I have done at Holyrood, the Tories have got my GE votes in the past even though they count for nothing)

[ChrisDR68]

But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001, while Blair was unpopular by 2005.

I think that understates the degree to which Blair put to sleep a lot of the British public's insecurities about voting in a Labour government.

It's very fashionable to come out with all sorts of bile about him these days (usually regarding the Iraq war but also about him being a closet Tory) but Michael Portillo described him on This Week while he was still PM as a political genius and in my view he was correct.

[afleitch]

But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001, while Blair was unpopular by 2005.

I think that understates the degree to which Blair put to sleep a lot of the British public's insecurities about voting in a Labour government.

It's very fashionable to come out with all sorts of bile about him these days (usually regarding the Iraq war but also about him being a closet Tory) but Michael Portillo described him on This Week while he was still PM as a political genius and in my view he was correct.

There have been three political genius' in British politics since the war, as opposed to just 'good politicians'; Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Alex Salmond (if you follow the entire arc of his career so far) has the potential to be the fourth.

[EPG]

In the last hundred years, they have won a working majority that lasted throughout the parliamentary term in only five out of 25 elections. The Conservatives did so ten times, and won overall majorities an extra three times but took smaller parties into government regardless. Labour won three minorities and three unworkably-small majorities that required another election or Liberal support after a few years. The final case is the current government, the first time Conservatives went into government with a minority of seats since the days of their Liberal Unionist allies.

This is true but deceptive. Labour was not a contender for power for the first two decades of its existence (and was not really organised as a national force until Arthur Henderson's overhaul of the Party in 1917/18). It was a serious electoral force during the interwar years but what can be fairly described as bad luck (compounded by problems with factionalism and also an over-reliance on its charismatic and photogenic leader) meant that it only held power for a handful of years. By way of example, had Labour lost the 1929 election (has there ever been a worse year to win an election?) it would likely have won any and all elections in the 1930s.

Moving on to the postwar decades, Labour's majority in 1950 was small but would have been workable for longer than it was had the government not been crippled by factional disputes. Labour was then very unlucky to lose in 1951 (when, famously, it polled the most votes but lost anyway) and would spend the majority of the decade embroiled in factional infighting. The 1955 and 1959 elections, despite substantial Tory majorities, were both closely contested.

Yes, it would be inappropriate to include 1910 and so forth. Fortunately, 1918 is the beginning of this data set; Labour were in third place then but the other 24 elections saw them as the main opposition force to the Conservatives. As for bad luck and factional disputes - this is the history of the actually-existing UK Labour Party and it is hardly deceitful to rely on actual events rather than unprovable counter-factuals; a party that can fall to a few dozen seats in 1931 was hardly primed to become the natural party of government all through the hungry Thirties. (If we're playing counter-factuals, non-Blair Labour could have won smaller in 1997 and lost in 2001.)

[Clyde1998]

For the record I'm voting SNP in the GE (while I have done at Holyrood, the Tories have got my GE votes in the past even though they count for nothing)

Which constituency do you live in?

[afleitch]

For the record I'm voting SNP in the GE (while I have done at Holyrood, the Tories have got my GE votes in the past even though they count for nothing)

Which constituency do you live in?

I'm registered to vote in Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

[Hifly]

For the record I'm voting SNP in the GE (while I have done at Holyrood, the Tories have got my GE votes in the past even though they count for nothing)

Which constituency do you live in?

I'm registered to vote in Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

Tom Greatrex will survive the SNP assault and sustain the Pro-Life caucus.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think that understates the degree to which Blair put to sleep a lot of the British public's insecurities about voting in a Labour government.

Considering that Labour had a massive poll lead under John Smith I doubt that. Labour's landslide in 1997 was mostly down to the fact that the incumbent government was marginally less popular than cancer.

Now, Blair was undoubtedly a very popular leader in the 1990s (and I quite agree that people are wrong to forget this) and I don't dispute that his personal appeal added to the jaw-dropping margin of the landslide (and so thus contributed directly to some of its most memorable moments), but let's not get carried away here...

[afleitch]

I think that understates the degree to which Blair put to sleep a lot of the British public's insecurities about voting in a Labour government.

Considering that Labour had a massive poll lead under John Smith I doubt that. Labour's landslide in 1997 was mostly down to the fact that the incumbent government was marginally less popular than cancer.

Curiously even accounting for the polls overestimating Labour, which they would have also done under Smith, what Blair did wasn't to hurt the Tories, who actually 'recovered' a bit from early 1995 onwards, but to halt the Lib Dems who had risen to a level not seen since the Alliance days and wouldn't be seen against until the Iraq War. It's probable that we'd have gotten a 2005 style result in 1997 instead. Which would still rank as a Labour landslide.

[Lurker]

Fwiw, in the last poll conducted before Smith's death in May 1994, Labour had a 21 point lead.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, it would be inappropriate to include 1910 and so forth. Fortunately, 1918 is the beginning of this data set; Labour were in third place then but the other 24 elections saw them as the main opposition force to the Conservatives. As for bad luck and factional disputes - this is the history of the actually-existing UK Labour Party and it is hardly deceitful to rely on actual events rather than unprovable counter-factuals;

But if we are to discuss structural factors then we have to consider alternative possibilities, don't we? And you can easily turn matters on their head to an extent; i.e. that Labour was constantly in power with only a small break between 1964 and 1979. Which also proves relatively little.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1931 was an electoral freak event caused by the political crisis - including (of course) the defection of the charismatic and photogenic leader that Labour campaigns in the 1920s had been based around - caused by the panic that followed the collapse of Creditanstalt. I don't think any British government could have survived the Depression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...no.

[136or142]

"But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001"

They also said that in 1992 and look what happened.

[Phony Moderate]

"But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001"

They also said that in 1992 and look what happened.

Yeah, the Tories swiftly dumped Thatcher and subsequently overtook Labour in the polls.

[136or142]

"But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001"

They also said that in 1992 and look what happened.

Yeah, the Tories swiftly dumped Thatcher and subsequently overtook Labour in the polls.

Huh? Thatcher was dumped in 1990.

However, it seems the polls were basically tied from March 1991 until the election.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992

I guess they didnt' say that in 1992.  I thought I remembered everybody saying it was Labour's election's to lose.

[EPG]

Fwiw, in the last poll conducted before Smith's death in May 1994, Labour had a 21 point lead.

And in mid-term polls in May 2012, Labour had a 13 per cent lead.

But if we are to discuss structural factors then we have to consider alternative possibilities, don't we? And you can easily turn matters on their head to an extent; i.e. that Labour was constantly in power with only a small break between 1964 and 1979. Which also proves relatively little.

I fear counter-factuals because considering only one is incomplete: they could be better or worse. Maybe a more united and effective Labour Party also unites opposition more effectively around the Conservatives because socialism is more of a threat. Maybe disunity in 1950 reflects a lack of support for any one future direction of Labour. Maybe winning bigger in 1950 would have established a Nordic social-democratic consensus. OK - all are valid and I don't have strong beliefs about which is more true, but some of these depend on the partly-exogenous factor of what the electorate is willing to tolerate. What we can certainly say is that Labour doesn't win power very often, and that when they do, like 1964-79, they don't win enough to govern as the leadership would like. The rest is unprovable, like what would have happened with more experienced and louder Conservative voices, and a weaker Labour consensus, in 1997-2001.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Blair basically did a whole bunch of cosmetic changes while the real legwork in ridding the party of trots was done by Kinnock and Smith. I mean sure, I give him credit in swinging a certain breed of urban middle-class constituency towards the party - but any notion that Blair single-handedly changed Labour from a socialist party to a bunch of sell-out liberals is silly. I mean was Blair's economic policy particularly different from say, the Wilson government?

[ChrisDR68]

Blair basically did a whole bunch of cosmetic changes while the real legwork in ridding the party of trots was done by Kinnock and Smith. I mean sure, I give him credit in swinging a certain breed of urban middle-class constituency towards the party - but any notion that Blair single-handedly changed Labour from a socialist party to a bunch of sell-out liberals is silly. I mean was Blair's economic policy particularly different from say, the Wilson government?

Again that underestimates his broad appeal in my view.

The Tories found him so hard to campaign against that for three general elections in a row they were stuck at or near their core vote of around 31-32%... a full 4% less than their next worst performances (in Oct 1974 and 2010). The Conservatives had never experienced anything like it since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1928.

His government could arguably have been a little more left leaning in the policies it followed. He would have been likely to get away with it depending on the policies in question and how far they went, but one of his concerns was that Labour had never in their history won a second successive full term of office having already served a full term. When seen in this light you can understand his caution.

The other thing to bear in mind is that many (perhaps most) left leaning voters tend to have unrealistically high expectations of what a Labour government can and should do when in power so they tend towards disillusion and disappointment almost as a matter of course when those expectations are not met.

The British people are a cautious and conservative bunch overall and are easily spooked if they think a Labour government could put the economy in jeopardy. That's what I believe Blair always kept in mind while he was PM.