Was the 1992 UK Election "a poison pill" for whichever party won

[OSR stands with Israel]

So like the equal of 2004 USA or did it only turn out that way as the Tories feel apart at the end of an 18 year stretch in power

[Statilius the Epicurean]

No because the economy was good. Black Wednesday might have hurt the Labour government, but it was more than that which damaged the Tories: endless sleaze scandals and infighting over the Maastricht treaty.

[Geoffrey Howe]

No, though if Labour had won I think they might have been out earlier than Blair/Brown.

No because the economy was good. Black Wednesday might have hurt the Labour government, but it was more than that which damaged the Tories: endless sleaze scandals and infighting over the Maastricht treaty.

Labour were still quite divided over Europe at that point, and John Major was hailed greatly for getting the single currency opt-out.

[CumbrianLefty]

Tories winning again in 1992 certainly was a total body blow for non-Tories at the time - immediately after the result there were lots of anguished discussions as to whether Labour would ever return to power (something maybe worth recalling just now)

But even though Labour benefited in the slightly longer term, it is still possible to see that GE as one of the most regrettable results since the war (even if not as bad as 2015) And a Labour win then at least would have avoided the toxic cult around Blair, one of the things that hampers the party now.

[YL]

With hindsight, there's a case to be made for it being a "good election to lose", though it didn't feel like that on the morning of 10 April 1992.  I just have a feeling that Black Wednesday, even they'd handled it better than Lamont did, would have been a disaster for a Labour government given the usual swing voters' concerns about Labour's "economic competence".

OTOH I can't see any upsides to losing in 2015.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though it is possible to construct a plausible "benign" scenario for Labour after a 1992 GE win, where the goodwill they have from the EU after the result enables some sort of "soft" ERM realignment and the humiliation of Black Wednesday is avoided. If so, a second term at least is entirely foreseeable

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Tories winning again in 1992 certainly was a total body blow for non-Tories at the time - immediately after the result there were lots of anguished discussions as to whether Labour would ever return to power (something maybe worth recalling just now)

But even though Labour benefited in the slightly longer term, it is still possible to see that GE as one of the most regrettable results since the war (even if not as bad as 2015) And a Labour win then at least would have avoided the toxic cult around Blair, one of the things that hampers the party now.

Is there really still a Blair cult within Labour? I was under the impression that even the right flank of the party has disassociated itself from his personal (if not necessarily policy) legacy. Have I been mistaken about this?

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes there absolutely is (its within the media as well as the actual party, of course) and amongst the most deranged there seems to be genuine belief that he can make a political comeback

The "gotcha" (even if fundamentally meaningless) factoid that "he is still a decade younger than Biden!!" has been wheeled out an awful lot by these people in the last week or two.

[beesley]

John McDonnell is only one year older than Blair, for what it's worth.

[CumbrianLefty]

More like two years, but yeah. And he still gets stanned as a future leader by some equivalent left wing types - hell, the more doolally amongst *them* still seem to genuinely want Corbyn back

[vileplume]

Tories winning again in 1992 certainly was a total body blow for non-Tories at the time - immediately after the result there were lots of anguished discussions as to whether Labour would ever return to power (something maybe worth recalling just now)

But even though Labour benefited in the slightly longer term, it is still possible to see that GE as one of the most regrettable results since the war (even if not as bad as 2015) And a Labour win then at least would have avoided the toxic cult around Blair, one of the things that hampers the party now.

It's also quite likely, with Labour winning narrowly in 1992, that the Tories would've been back in power by the time of the financial crash and thus would have received most of the blame for it.

[vileplume]

With hindsight, there's a case to be made for it being a "good election to lose", though it didn't feel like that on the morning of 10 April 1992.  I just have a feeling that Black Wednesday, even they'd handled it better than Lamont did, would have been a disaster for a Labour government given the usual swing voters' concerns about Labour's "economic competence".

OTOH I can't see any upsides to losing in 2015.

2005 would have been the 'best' election for Labour to lose IMO as the Tories having not completed their modernisation process by then and alongside having to deal with the financial crash, they would have totally ripped themselves apart in government. Howard would have been a useless PM to boot. Even with the memory of Iraq stinging, Labour would've been back by 2010.

[vileplume]

Tories winning again in 1992 certainly was a total body blow for non-Tories at the time - immediately after the result there were lots of anguished discussions as to whether Labour would ever return to power (something maybe worth recalling just now)

But even though Labour benefited in the slightly longer term, it is still possible to see that GE as one of the most regrettable results since the war (even if not as bad as 2015) And a Labour win then at least would have avoided the toxic cult around Blair, one of the things that hampers the party now.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the current government's luck will eventually run out and Labour will some day return to power. The question is really when. They really don't look remotely likely to win the next election as things currently stand. Perhaps people eventually tire of the Tories after 18-19 years in 2028/2029 and St Andy of Manchester leads Labour to victory with a huge majority. He's probably the best Labour has and his legacy is unlikely to be as toxic as Blair's.

[CumbrianLefty]

With hindsight, there's a case to be made for it being a "good election to lose", though it didn't feel like that on the morning of 10 April 1992.  I just have a feeling that Black Wednesday, even they'd handled it better than Lamont did, would have been a disaster for a Labour government given the usual swing voters' concerns about Labour's "economic competence".

OTOH I can't see any upsides to losing in 2015.

2005 would have been the 'best' election for Labour to lose IMO as the Tories having not completed their modernisation process by then and alongside having to deal with the financial crash, they would have totally ripped themselves apart in government. Howard would have been a useless PM to boot. Even with the memory of Iraq stinging, Labour would've been back by 2010.

And it would have meant nothing like as unhealthy a cult around Blair. The real giveaway from these types is when they claim 2005 as his "third landslide victory" - it was nothing of the sort in any way.

[Pericles]

With hindsight, there's a case to be made for it being a "good election to lose", though it didn't feel like that on the morning of 10 April 1992.  I just have a feeling that Black Wednesday, even they'd handled it better than Lamont did, would have been a disaster for a Labour government given the usual swing voters' concerns about Labour's "economic competence".

OTOH I can't see any upsides to losing in 2015.

2005 would have been the 'best' election for Labour to lose IMO as the Tories having not completed their modernisation process by then and alongside having to deal with the financial crash, they would have totally ripped themselves apart in government. Howard would have been a useless PM to boot. Even with the memory of Iraq stinging, Labour would've been back by 2010.

And it would have meant nothing like as unhealthy a cult around Blair. The real giveaway from these types is when they claim 2005 as his "third landslide victory" - it was nothing of the sort in any way.

355 is a pretty good seat count especially for Labour which unfortunately is what matters. It's on the high end of the spectrum and is almost as good of a result as Boris got in 2019 (so the current Tory FPP bias might not be as bad as the old Labour bias).

[CumbrianLefty]

Still a sizeable loss of seats on the previous two GEs, so even on that metric it falls short.

And just 36% of the GB vote for a winning party was, and remains, pretty pathetic. I know that the Tories scarcely did any better when they got a majority in 2015, that was fairly unimpressive too.

Blair got very, very lucky.