Are the UK Tories in even worse position then they were in early 1996

[OSR stands with Israel]

When were the Tories in worse position, a year and 3 months out before the next election. By polling it seems like 1996 was worse but I believe polling had a bigger pro Labor bias then too

[afleitch]

Yes.

1997 had both a relatively personable Tory PM and an improving and solid economy.

Looking at all performances, you can see how some governments improve midterm etc.

The current government is tracking the 1992-1997 in terms of looking.

https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1698369056598851947

[CumbrianLefty]

Even now I am too superstitious to write the Tories off utterly, but its not looking good for sure.

And if, as seems quite possible, the conclusion they draw from these byelections is "we need to move even further to the right to pick up those Reform UK voters" then a complete wipeout cannot be totally ruled out. It would be like late period Corbynism on steroids.

[EastwoodS]

Even now I am too superstitious to write the Tories off utterly, but its not looking good for sure.

And if, as seems quite possible, the conclusion they draw from these byelections is "we need to move even further to the right to pick up those Reform UK voters" then a complete wipeout cannot be totally ruled out. It would be like late period Corbynism on steroids.

"let's become moderate US Republicans to catch a mere 5% of the electorate at the expense of our base that will leave us and vote for the lib Dems"

[MABA 2020]

I have been too optimistic in my predictions in the past, but things do seem worst now. At least the economy was growing in the 90's, what do the Tories have going for them now?

[Hnv1]

Mid Bedfordshire is definitely rock bottom

[Pres Mike]

I have been too optimistic in my predictions in the past, but things do seem worst now. At least the economy was growing in the 90's, what do the Tories have going for them now?

Third parties are much stronger. And Labour has relied on Scottish seats in the past, will the SNP prevent another labour victory?

[Lumine]

1996. The Conservative Party has clear personal divisions and plently of overambition mixed with incompetence today, but they are not as hopelessly divided as they were back in the 90's with Europe. During the 1997 campaign Major had to beg his MPs "not to bind his hands" and scores of them introduced personal manifestos setting our their own views. That made it impossible to take them seriously, amplifying the effect of Black Wednesday and the endless scandals that destroyed the government's reputation. The opposition was also not just competently run, it also inspired hope and symbolized a breath of fresh air.

Bad as it is right now - and I firmly believe they're headed for a rightly deserved thumping -, there are some silver linings. Even amidst the predictions of wipeout, the party will still be left in a stronger position in Scotland than the 1997 void for example, the electorate has proved that it is quite capable of swinging strongly against incumbents (as opposed to it taking three painful elections before the Tories could barely get rid of Labour), Europe is no longer there to split the party apart, and Starmer, while unfairly maligned, is no Tony Blair.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In a white room, yes, but they aren’t up against anyone as compelling as Blair was in 1997 (when people bought into his schtick) and the Lib Dems are so much institutionally weaker than they were at that time. The opposition cannot take as much advantage of the government’s weakness as they could have then.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Probably early 1996, in practice.

[Pericles]

For now, about the same. They are beyond doomed as a government, and they know it. Due to the volatility of the electorate and the deep problems the UK faces, particularly economically, I think it would be easier to win back power than it was for Hague, IDS and Howard. It will be very far from easy though.

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

They lead by 18 points in the current polling average, this isn't as bad as it was under Truss but they have been flatlining for the last year under Sunak (and way below even the worst polling under Johnson).

[CumbrianLefty]

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

This is.......impressively wrong in almost all respects. Quite a feat in such a short post.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't know that you can definitively say that one situation or the other is worse, but the government now is certainly responding to the situation less well than the government was in 1996.

[afleitch]

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

This is.......impressively wrong in almost all respects. Quite a feat in such a short post.

^^^

It was Truss that caused a 'break' in the electorate that then put Labour in a pre 1997 position which is holding onto over a year later.

By this point in Major's timeline the Tories were recovering, as were his ratings, the government's ratings on economic competency etc.

Indeed the 1997 shellacking was under one of the best set of economic conditions any government going to the polls had faced.

[CumbrianLefty]

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

This is.......impressively wrong in almost all respects. Quite a feat in such a short post.

^^^

It was Truss that caused a 'break' in the electorate that then put Labour in a pre 1997 position which is holding onto over a year later.

By this point in Major's timeline the Tories were recovering, as were his ratings, the government's ratings on economic competency etc.

Indeed the 1997 shellacking was under one of the best set of economic conditions any government going to the polls had faced.

Yes, which is why Blair being Labour leader at the time likely *did* make a real difference (don't get me wrong, Labour still wins without him - but had John Smith lived it could have been a majority of around 60 rather than 180) but also why Starmer not being Mr Tony might not matter so much now.

[MABA 2020]

I have been too optimistic in my predictions in the past, but things do seem worst now. At least the economy was growing in the 90's, what do the Tories have going for them now?

Third parties are much stronger. And Labour has relied on Scottish seats in the past, will the SNP prevent another labour victory?

Except the SNP aren't so hot at the moment either, they aren't about to stop Labour from winning a majority even if they hold all their seats (unlikely)

[oldtimer]

1996. The Conservative Party has clear personal divisions and plently of overambition mixed with incompetence today, but they are not as hopelessly divided as they were back in the 90's with Europe. During the 1997 campaign Major had to beg his MPs "not to bind his hands" and scores of them introduced personal manifestos setting our their own views. That made it impossible to take them seriously, amplifying the effect of Black Wednesday and the endless scandals that destroyed the government's reputation. The opposition was also not just competently run, it also inspired hope and symbolized a breath of fresh air.

Bad as it is right now - and I firmly believe they're headed for a rightly deserved thumping -, there are some silver linings. Even amidst the predictions of wipeout, the party will still be left in a stronger position in Scotland than the 1997 void for example, the electorate has proved that it is quite capable of swinging strongly against incumbents (as opposed to it taking three painful elections before the Tories could barely get rid of Labour), Europe is no longer there to split the party apart, and Starmer, while unfairly maligned, is no Tony Blair.

Scotland reflexively votes the reverse of England and Wales lately, so Conservatives loosing all their seats except their Scottish ones would be fun.

The economy is the single factor, if it's not fixed in time then out they go.

[MillennialModerate]

It’s all relative. In a vacuum it’s 2023. The tories are more disliked, they’ve screwed things up royally (where as 96 people were just sick of them and excited for Labour)

But as has been said - the tories were far more divided in ‘96, the third party (thus tactical voting) was far stronger and they were facing one of the most formidable political titans in British history.

The polls are inflated at the moment. Labour seems likely to win but they aren’t winning Blair numbers like polls show. I’d guesstimate Labour wins something like 350.

[IceAgeComing]

The biggest differences are that Starmer isn't Blair but also there's not exactly a great deal that the Tories can tout as big achievements in the last thirteen years. There's Brexit for the 52% of people who voted for it but I suspect that's a lot of the core Tory vote, the cranks are annoyed at the Tories and the remaining 48% haven't been that catered to since. The economy has performed poorly both in terms of real growth and in terms of standard of living. The tax burden is higher now than any year since 1948; yet people are seeing worse services that are creaking at the seams and government debt is at an all time high (three things that should not really go together); there's not really been any big public projects that the government can tout (perhaps Crossrail but that's TfL); and they've failed every promise they've made on immigration. Crime is up and people are noticing it; local councils are going bust across the board (they were able to defend Birmingham as it being a poorly run Labour council; but there are a lot more coming unless they are bailed out); and the government doesn't seem to have any ideas. There's almost a decade of austerity during times of historically low interest rates leading to a depressed recovery; then wasted years debating a ruinous decision to leave a big economic pact; then the pandemic. You've got a bitterly divided party clearly wanting to go into opposition so they can rip the sh**t out of each other and see who survives (and I suspect who are confident that they'll saunter back in next time anyway).

The Cameron government had some good socially liberal reforms (marriage equality the main one) but they were broadly passed with cross-party support and also isn't the sort of thing that the modern Conservative party is positioning itself for. That (and Brexit if that is your thing) is it: a shadow of the legacies that the Blair/Brown or Thatcher/Major governments can point to.

A government that's been in office for 13 years running a CHANGE campaign is not a good thing for the party in question: it means that they know they've got  all to argue for so they'll pretend they are the opposition. The people clearly are not buying it; I think that makes their life very difficult next year (my money is on an October election).

Labour aren't inspiring but they also aren't this shower: and I think that's the point where a lot of people are at.

[Sumner 1868]

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

This is.......impressively wrong in almost all respects. Quite a feat in such a short post.

It looks like I accidently hit the lead sort ascending button without realizing it. Disregard that post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

[EastAnglianLefty]

But as has been said - the tories were far more divided in ‘96, the third party (thus tactical voting) was far stronger and they were facing one of the most formidable political titans in British history.

This is wrong. LD polling in the run up to 1997 was not particularly high - they recovered a bit in the short campaign, but still lost vote share relative to 1992. More pertinently, by-elections have shown incredibly high levels of tactical voting - Mid Bedfordshire is about the only case this Parliament where the LDs haven't either won or lost their deposit.

[afleitch]

But as has been said - the tories were far more divided in ‘96, the third party (thus tactical voting) was far stronger and they were facing one of the most formidable political titans in British history.

This is wrong. LD polling in the run up to 1997 was not particularly high - they recovered a bit in the short campaign, but still lost vote share relative to 1992. More pertinently, by-elections have shown incredibly high levels of tactical voting - Mid Bedfordshire is about the only case this Parliament where the LDs haven't either won or lost their deposit.

The Tories are polling marginally worse (about a point) at this stage than the Tories were this far out of the last possible GE date for 1997 (January 1996)

A similar polling recovery is going to get them above 30%, if lucky.

The Lib Dems are polling about 3 points worse and as noted they also picked up support in the run up to the 1997 GE. But with tactical voting, there's the potential for a similar seat haul despite being a few points lower.

Labour were overestimated of course by some pollsters who didn't ask much beyond the 'big three'; smaller parties were not prompted. That isn't an issue this time with polling except perhaps in reverse.

Reform are clearly being overestimated in polling based on by-election and local election results. But it's also not a Tory proxy; much of those 'Conservative 2019' switchers to Reform are potentially 'Labour 2017' voters etc. We'll need some British Election Study info to get a bit of a handle on them.

[CumbrianLefty]

But as has been said - the tories were far more divided in ‘96, the third party (thus tactical voting) was far stronger and they were facing one of the most formidable political titans in British history.

This is wrong. LD polling in the run up to 1997 was not particularly high - they recovered a bit in the short campaign, but still lost vote share relative to 1992. More pertinently, by-elections have shown incredibly high levels of tactical voting - Mid Bedfordshire is about the only case this Parliament where the LDs haven't either won or lost their deposit.

There are just two - Mid Beds and City of Chester.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

A Starmer premiership is likely.

[CumbrianLefty]

No, they recovered from the low point of Truss very quickly. Leads of 25+ for Labour are now only about 10+ instead, which is about where they were in 2012.

This is.......impressively wrong in almost all respects. Quite a feat in such a short post.

It looks like I accidently hit the lead sort ascending button without realizing it. Disregard that post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Ah well, that's commendably honest. And most of us have messed up similarly at some point