British Political Realignments

[Del Tachi]

Many political scientists belief that some elections are "realigning", that is they produce new coalitions and typically give one party an ascendancy over the other.

Are there any general elections in British history that could be considered "realigning"?

I can think of 1979 being a conservative realignment, while 2015 possibly has the potential to be a realignment in Labour's favor.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

1945!

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

1945 and 1979, basically.

[RogueBeaver]

1918/23/4? Liberal implosion seems pretty realigning to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The American concept of realignment makes very little sense in a country that does not have institutional parties that aren't firmly wedded to certain interests and political traditions. Voting patterns shift over time, but not because different groups fall in and out of different electoral 'coalitions' (at least, not usually. At least not like that).

Obviously in a British context the really important electoral shift was the rise of the Labour Party and the collapse of the Liberal Party in the first half of the twentieth century, but that can't be understood in terms of 'realignments.'

[DC Al Fine]

What realpolitik said. If you want non-American realignments check out Canada. We seem to have them every 20 years or so.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that using the US concept of a realignment doesn't really work in a Parliamentary context... BUT, I do agree that elections that shifted the electoral status quo were 1945 and 1979... 1945 moreso, because even though the Atlee Government only last 6 years, a large portion of their agenda was taken up by those who succeeded them.

1979 was slightly different, IMHO, because were it not for the Falklands, there was a very good chance that Thatcher would have been thrown out of office and a lot of the deeper reforms which came out of the 1983-1987 term would not have happened.

[adma]

How "realignment" would 1997 be; or is New Labour basically Thatcherism under another name?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How "realignment" would 1997 be; or is New Labour basically Thatcherism under another name?

I think 1997 was Labour re-branding and re-positioning itself to the new paradigm created by Thatcherism.

[countydurhamboy]

I wonder if 1983 was the true realignment.  Politically, as said above, many of Thatchers most radical reforms came after this victory and these reforms have been largely accepted by the political class. 1983 finished off the post war consensus.

This election also brought the rise of the third party as a serious force. Labour largely collapsed in rural areas which became battlegrounds between the Tories and the alliance. The opposite   happened in the cities but the tory weakness was masked by the scale of the landslide.

1964 is interesting due to the opening of the north south divide and the end of the tories in the working class areas of the north.

[adma]

How "realignment" would 1997 be; or is New Labour basically Thatcherism under another name?

I think 1997 was Labour re-branding and re-positioning itself to the new paradigm created by Thatcherism.

So it was more of an "internal" (i.e. party-specific) realignment than an "external" one.

Though as realignments go, 1997 may be more apropos re the all-but-extermination of the Tories in Scotland (I'd add Wales but for the ground they made up there last election)

[Del Tachi]

How "realignment" would 1997 be; or is New Labour basically Thatcherism under another name?

I think 1997 was Labour re-branding and re-positioning itself to the new paradigm created by Thatcherism.

So it was more of an "internal" (i.e. party-specific) realignment than an "external" one.

Though as realignments go, 1997 may be more apropos re the all-but-extermination of the Tories in Scotland (I'd add Wales but for the ground they made up there last election)

I don't think that 1997 would count as a realignment because it was more of the Labour Party readjusting to the electoral paradigm created by Thatcherism rather than creating an entirely new one. 

However, in 2015 Labour will have the opportunity to shift the electoral consensus by becoming an anti-austerity, quasi-social justice party.  The referendum in Scotland may have major electoral implications too, even if they vote to stay part of the UK. 

So...so far the best candidates for British "realigning" elections seem to be:

1918-23:  An extremely turbulent time in British politics where we see the Conservative Party gain ascendency over the Liberals, who themselves are replaced by Labour as the main center-left party.  Establishes the Conservative-Labor dichotomy that exists up until the next realignment. 

1945: This is a realignment in Labour's favor.  Attlee is able to build a post-war consenus promoting a more activist government, which is adopted (to a lesser degree, of course) by the Tories.  This belieft in a more "activist" style of governments persists until the next realignment.

1979/1983: Margaret Thatcher leads the Conservatives to a political ascendency after the Labour government is blamed for lackluster economic performance.  Her government's successes overseas and at home lead to a new era of conservatism in politics.  The Labour Party, after suffering four embarasing losses in a row, are eventually forced to adopt the neoliberalism of Thatcherism to become electorally viable. 

2015?:  Labour seems to be a good position to shift political thinking in the UK once again.  With the econonomic situation in Britian still far from desirable and with the Thatcherite ideas of the government losing popular support every day, 2015 may be the year Labour is reexert its dominance in Westminster.

Interesting to note that, if these are realignments, that realignments in Britian seem to happen every 25-30 years.  Much more common that the every 40 or so years that they occur in the United States.   

[Zanas]

Even if Labour wins in 2015, I fear it won't do anything new and continue do the same thing European social-democracy has been doing lately when coming to power : sh*t itself to death (see Pasok, PSOE, PS, SPD etc.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is already getting seriously muddled: are you talking about changes to voting patterns or policy shifts? Because while they are sometimes related, often they aren't.

I mean, the reality is that one of the most significant elections in terms of longterm impact on voting patterns was the double header of 1974.

[YL]

I don't expect much more to happen in 2015 than the reversal of the Lab to Lib Dem shift of 2005.  There might be a UKIP breakthrough, but I doubt there'll be enough of one to put it under this heading.

Anyway, I nominate 2001...









... in Northern Ireland.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, yes. That would be a very rare occasion where the term makes proper sense, because that's literally what happened.

[Leftbehind]

There's nothing that sets apart 2015 from any of New Labour's terms in either wilfulness (in Labour command) or opportunity (no greater than 1997 was) to change from the neoliberal consensus. They've adopted the coalition's austerity and many of their radical 'reforms', so will in all likelihood be to the right of Blair.

[DC Al Fine]

There's nothing that sets apart 2015 from any of New Labour's terms in either wilfulness (in Labour command) or opportunity (no greater than 1997 was) to change from the neoliberal consensus. They've adopted the coalition's austerity and many of their radical 'reforms', so will in all likelihood be to the right of Blair.

I'm not so sure about that. Would the Tories have had any chance of beating Atlee's Labour Party if they ran on a libertarian platform? A Footesque Labour Party would have had similar trouble in the 1990's.

[Leftbehind]

There's nothing that sets apart 2015 from any of New Labour's terms in either wilfulness (in Labour command) or opportunity (no greater than 1997 was) to change from the neoliberal consensus. They've adopted the coalition's austerity and many of their radical 'reforms', so will in all likelihood be to the right of Blair.

I'm not so sure about that. Would the Tories have had any chance of beating Atlee's Labour Party if they ran on a libertarian platform? A Footesque Labour Party would have had similar trouble in the 1990's.

Well we can't know that. 1983 was a perfect storm for the left - internally warring Labour (with many on its Right more willing to see Labour crushed than a leftist Labour victory) and splits unifying as a credible alternative (senior figures and extensive coverage) to split the vote, whilst Thatcher rebounded from a victory at war. Indeed Labour under Foot were slaughtering Thatcher in the polls immediately pre-SDP.

The SDP bubble had well and truly burst after a decade of handing the Tories undeserved landslides and after nearly two decades the Tories were very unpopular: I don't buy that Old Labour couldn't have ever won again - or that the Tories legacy was one the population wanted adopting.

[DC Al Fine]

There's nothing that sets apart 2015 from any of New Labour's terms in either wilfulness (in Labour command) or opportunity (no greater than 1997 was) to change from the neoliberal consensus. They've adopted the coalition's austerity and many of their radical 'reforms', so will in all likelihood be to the right of Blair.

I'm not so sure about that. Would the Tories have had any chance of beating Atlee's Labour Party if they ran on a libertarian platform? A Footesque Labour Party would have had similar trouble in the 1990's.

Well we can't know that. 1983 was a perfect storm for the left - internally warring Labour (with many on its Right more willing to see Labour crushed than a leftist Labour victory) and splits unifying as a credible alternative (senior figures and extensive coverage) to split the vote, whilst Thatcher rebounded from a victory at war. Indeed Labour under Foot were slaughtering Thatcher in the polls immediately pre-SDP.

The SDP bubble had well and truly burst after a decade of handing the Tories undeserved landslides and after nearly two decades the Tories were very unpopular: I don't buy that Old Labour couldn't have ever won again - or that the Tories legacy was one the population wanted adopting.

Internal party warring and vote splits do not happen in a vaccumn. SDP broke off in part because Labour was so hard left at the time. A similar thing happened in Canada with the rise of the Reform party. As much as we Tories complained about losing winnable seats, the vote splits happened largely because of actions taken by the Progressive Conservative leadership which alienated a major part of the party. The same applies to the Labour-SDP split.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not sure that 1993 is a particularly good comparison. The PCs were destroyed that year because the Mulroney government had managed to alienate every group in the country as a result of its policies in government. I'm not familiar enough with Britain to speak with authority on the subject, but my impression is that Labour's problems in 1983 were not primarily the result of what it had done in government.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not sure that 1993 is a particularly good comparison. The PCs were destroyed that year because the Mulroney government had managed to alienate every group in the country as a result of its policies in government. I'm not familiar enough with Britain to speak with authority on the subject, but my impression is that Labour's problems in 1983 were not primarily the result of what it had done in government.

I was arguing more from a general sense of "leadership pissed off ______ faction of the party" but fair enough.

[jaichind]

I would argue 1997 is a realignment.  Post-1997 there was and still is a structural advantage of Labour Party where it can capture a majority of seats with a smaller vote share relative to the Tories.  Even in 2010 Labour was able to fight the Tories out of a majority on its own and looks like it can come back to power next election despite having a very unpopular leader.

[Leftbehind]

There's nothing that sets apart 2015 from any of New Labour's terms in either wilfulness (in Labour command) or opportunity (no greater than 1997 was) to change from the neoliberal consensus. They've adopted the coalition's austerity and many of their radical 'reforms', so will in all likelihood be to the right of Blair.

I'm not so sure about that. Would the Tories have had any chance of beating Atlee's Labour Party if they ran on a libertarian platform? A Footesque Labour Party would have had similar trouble in the 1990's.

Well we can't know that. 1983 was a perfect storm for the left - internally warring Labour (with many on its Right more willing to see Labour crushed than a leftist Labour victory) and splits unifying as a credible alternative (senior figures and extensive coverage) to split the vote, whilst Thatcher rebounded from a victory at war. Indeed Labour under Foot were slaughtering Thatcher in the polls immediately pre-SDP.

The SDP bubble had well and truly burst after a decade of handing the Tories undeserved landslides and after nearly two decades the Tories were very unpopular: I don't buy that Old Labour couldn't have ever won again - or that the Tories legacy was one the population wanted adopting.

Internal party warring and vote splits do not happen in a vaccumn. SDP broke off in part because Labour was so hard left at the time. A similar thing happened in Canada with the rise of the Reform party. As much as we Tories complained about losing winnable seats, the vote splits happened largely because of actions taken by the Progressive Conservative leadership which alienated a major part of the party. The same applies to the Labour-SDP split.

The point was by the 90's if Labour had carried on promoting Old Labour socialism, there wouldn't be a Right to split off - they'd be in the Liberals watching their voters gradually abandon them as they become less credible as an opposition/alterntive with every poorly rewarded result.

I would argue 1997 is a realignment.  Post-1997 there was and still is a structural advantage of Labour Party where it can capture a majority of seats with a smaller vote share relative to the Tories.  Even in 2010 Labour was able to fight the Tories out of a majority on its own and looks like it can come back to power next election despite having a very unpopular leader.

A legacy of the popularity of Thatcherism(!)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not familiar enough with Britain to speak with authority on the subject, but my impression is that Labour's problems in 1983 were not primarily the result of what it had done in government.

This is correct. Labour's electoral woes in the 1980s were approximately 95% self-inflicted (also an issue, if less severely, in the 1950s). The problem, essentially, was that factional warfare can get very addictive very quickly. Beating the other side - or sides as, unlike the 50s, there were more than two warring factions in the 50s - became more important than beating the Tories.