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

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both were defeated in Landslides , but  Tories came out of the Wilderness faster than Labor Did . Which party though at time looked like they were going to spend a longer time in the Wilderness.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[Leftbehind]

In terms of concern over an existential threat to the party - I'd argue '97 was the Tories '83 - they were crushed by making no advance in 2001 but fearful they'd be wiped out in 97. Struggling to advance after nearly 20 consecutive years in power is not unexpected.

I think Labour's 1983 was clearly the more bleak - a divided party in FPTP gets destroyed, and the Tories' fear that they'd be on the receiving end of what wrote Labour off throughout Thatcherism is what has led us to our current predicament.

[Suburbia]

2001 Tories.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looking at many articles from 2001-2003 they thought the Tories were  dead

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jan/02/conservatives.uk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/aug/21/conservatives.uk5

heck even in 2005 people thought their future looked bleak: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/sep/11/conservatives.toryleadership2005

[Conservatopia]

Between 1979 and 1983 Labour actually polled ahead whereas between 1997 and 2001 the Tories didn't.

However in 1983 Labour only narrowly avoudes dropping to third place in vote share behind the Alliance whereas Tories in 2001 were comfortably ahead of the Lib Dems.

So 1983 Labour had reason for hope (previous high polling) that 2001 Tories didn't.  But 1983 Labour also had the distinct possibility of electoral doom (third place) that 2001 Tories didn't.

I would rather be Kinnock than Duncan Smith/Howard though.

[Octowakandi]

I think the difference between 1983 Labour is that Labour could still run a stark contrast against the Tories in terms of what they believed since Thatcherism was so radical while the Tories in 2001 didn't have very more options except hope this highly charismatic, highly talented PM just burns out. They couldn't go further to the right, going to the left would have diminishing returns when New Labour was so moderate anyway. They got lucky with Iraq but even then couldn't really utilize it since they as a party broadly supported the war.

[Peanut]

My gut reaction was to vote Lab '83, but very interesting arguments are made in this thread.

[thumb21]

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.

[Former President tack50]

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?

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

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%.

[Former President tack50]

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)

[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)

[thumb21]

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?

You're right that the Alliance vote was distributed very inefficiently and there wasn't much chance of them overtaking either major party on seat numbers without big changes to their coalition (which would probably be more likely if they did end up being seen as the main opposition to the Tories). However, if the Alliance had overtaken Labour in the PV, Labour would still have the humiliation of not just losing badly but coming third and they'd lose a lot of credibility. Alliance would be in a good position to present themselves as the main opposition and that would make it harder for Labour and easier for the Alliance to coalesce non-Tory voters.

Overturning the two party system is difficult for many reasons so I'm not saying there was much chance that the Alliance could have permanently overtaken either major party in the PV, let alone seat numbers - but the fact that there was even a possibility that Labour could fall into third place in the PV makes Labour's outlook in 1983 worse than the Tory outlook in 2001.

[Samof94]

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.

Michael Foot’s manifesto was a “suicide note” and overused Clause 4.