Could the next Labor majority exceed 1997?

[Sir Mohamed]

Labor won 418 seats in the 1997 election and 412 in 2001. Given the polls of the last ~6 months, do you think there's the chance for a super tsunami in the next UK general election? I've seen some estimations that with current poll numbers, Labor could even crack 500 seats. Is that remotely possible? I guess that would be the most epic defeat in the modern Western world a governing party has ever suffered.

As of today, it just seems that the Tories are lucky the next election won't come along all too soon and there's room for improvement.

[CumbrianLefty]

Anything is possible, but Labour people aren't getting carried away.

And the fact Sunak has actually achieved something useful this week has our punditocracy writing their periodic "don't write the Tories off" spiel - they have the Budget in a few weeks too.

As said by someone online who I respect - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but more a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

[DL]

As said by someone I respect online - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but rather a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

I presume you mean a sort of 2010 in reverse where instead of the expected Labour landslide, they just become largest party in a hung parliament and have to do a deal with the LibDems?

While obviously any party would rather have a majority, what would it mean substantively if Starmer had to form a minority government reliant on the LibDems? Are there ANY issues these days where the Labour Party has a policy that would cross a "red line" in the eyes of the Lib Dems? Seems to me that these days Labour and LDs are virtually identical on policy. Its true the Lib Dems are more adamant about wanting to rejoin the EU - but everyone knows that is not going to happen

[TheTide]

As said by someone I respect online - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but rather a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

I presume you mean a sort of 2010 in reverse where instead of the expected Labour landslide, they just become largest party in a hung parliament and have to do a deal with the LibDems?

While obviously any party would rather have a majority, what would it mean substantively if Starmer had to form a minority government reliant on the LibDems? Are there ANY issues these days where the Labour Party has a policy that would cross a "red line" in the eyes of the Lib Dems? Seems to me that these days Labour and LDs are virtually identical on policy. Its true the Lib Dems are more adamant about wanting to rejoin the EU - but everyone knows that is not going to happen

Labour is fundamentally a social democratic party, whereas the Lib Dems very much aren't. Indeed, their current leader is a bit of a market fetishist.

[DL]

Labour is fundamentally a social democratic party, whereas the Lib Dems very much aren't. Indeed, their current leader is a bit of a market fetishist.

I realize the two parties have different roots and histories etc...but what would be an example of policy that Keir Starmer might want to bring in as PM that the LibDems would "veto" if given the chance?

The last time I recall a big policy rift between Labour and the LibDems was about 20 years ago when Labour supported the invasion of Iraq and the LibDems opposed it

[TheTide]

Labour is fundamentally a social democratic party, whereas the Lib Dems very much aren't. Indeed, their current leader is a bit of a market fetishist.

I realize the two parties have different roots and histories etc...but what would be an example of policy that Keir Starmer might want to bring in as PM that the LibDems would "veto" if given the chance?

The last time I recall a big policy rift between Labour and the LibDems was about 20 years ago when Labour supported the invasion of Iraq and the LibDems opposed it

It's not so much about the intricacies of policy as about direction and priorities. Housing is an issue that springs immediately to mind.

[DL]

Once upon a time it was much more cut and tried - Labour wanted nationalization of banks and heavy industry and wanted to quit NATO and the Liberals were just a bunch of middle class do-gooders (mostly secondary school teachers) who steered clear of anything radical - but now in 2023 the differences, are pretty nuanced...

[oldtimer]

It could, but we will know about a month before election day.

[adma]

How's Labour polling in Scotland?  Because that'd obviously be key to repeating or excelling 1997...

[JimJamUK]

It’s not a policy difference, but the Lib Dems do play a useful role electorally. While at a national level people who are willing to vote Lib Dem would overwhelmingly consider doing so for Labour these days if need be, the picture is more mixed in Lib Dem target seats which tend to be more Conservative leaning and are able to see a significant number of otherwise Conservative voters choose to vote for the Lib Dems based on local circumstances (but they wouldn’t do so for Labour).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anything is possible, but Labour people aren't getting carried away.

And the fact Sunak has actually achieved something useful this week has our punditocracy writing their periodic "don't write the Tories off" spiel - they have the Budget in a few weeks too.

As said by someone online who I respect - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but more a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

Two years out from 2010, the BBC thought that the Tories were on track of winning bigger than they did in 1983 and we all know how 2010 ended up. Here's an interesting video

[Хahar 🤔]

In 1997, Labour finished ahead of the Conservatives by 12½ points. According to Wikipedia, there has been exactly one poll in the last five months showing Labour with a smaller lead than 12½ points. Most polls have shown a lead of over 20 points. In other words, overwhelmingly polling suggests a much larger victory than in 1997. (Comparisons here to polling from 1995 and 1996 are not useful due to methodological changes in the polling industry.) Labour could fall a long way and still be in line for a victory on the level of 1997.

It makes sense that the British media would be acting as though a landslide victory were out of the question, because of course the media would have a vested interest in a close election and also because much of the media would have a vested interest in Conservative victory. Any normal person who believes that is engaging in irrational skepticism.

The last time I recall a big policy rift between Labour and the LibDems was about 20 years ago when Labour supported the invasion of Iraq and the LibDems opposed it

What about the five years when the Liberal Democrats were in government and Labour was in opposition? Were there any policy differences then?

[OSR stands with Israel]

In 1997, Labour finished ahead of the Conservatives by 12½ points. According to Wikipedia, there has been exactly one poll in the last five months showing Labour with a smaller lead than 12½ points. Most polls have shown a lead of over 20 points. In other words, overwhelmingly polling suggests a much larger victory than in 1997. (Comparisons here to polling from 1995 and 1996 are not useful due to methodological changes in the polling industry.) Labour could fall a long way and still be in line for a victory on the level of 1997.

It makes sense that the British media would be acting as though a landslide victory were out of the question, because of course the media would have a vested interest in a close election and also because much of the media would have a vested interest in Conservative victory. Any normal person who believes that is engaging in irrational skepticism.

The last time I recall a big policy rift between Labour and the LibDems was about 20 years ago when Labour supported the invasion of Iraq and the LibDems opposed it

What about the five years when the Liberal Democrats were in government and Labour was in opposition? Were there any policy differences then?

Keep in mind at this point in the 1997 cylce(so May of 1995), the Tories were down by over 30 points in many polls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election


Now the difference is the economy was doing pretty well in 1997 which probably helped the Tories close that gap while the economy come 2025 likely wont be in good shape.

[Хahar 🤔]

In 1997, Labour finished ahead of the Conservatives by 12½ points. According to Wikipedia, there has been exactly one poll in the last five months showing Labour with a smaller lead than 12½ points. Most polls have shown a lead of over 20 points. In other words, overwhelmingly polling suggests a much larger victory than in 1997. (Comparisons here to polling from 1995 and 1996 are not useful due to methodological changes in the polling industry.) Labour could fall a long way and still be in line for a victory on the level of 1997.

It makes sense that the British media would be acting as though a landslide victory were out of the question, because of course the media would have a vested interest in a close election and also because much of the media would have a vested interest in Conservative victory. Any normal person who believes that is engaging in irrational skepticism.

Keep in mind at this point in the 1997 cylce(so May of 1995), the Tories were down by over 30 points in many polls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election


Now the difference is the economy was doing pretty well in 1997 which probably helped the Tories close that gap while the economy come 2025 likely wont be in good shape.

I have bolded the relevant portion of my post.

[TheTide]

Even if you put aside the methodological issues, Sunak isn't the 'safe pair of hands' that Callaghan, Major and Brown all were to much of the electorate - their respective doomed governments clawed back support once an election was on the horizon.

[CumbrianLefty]

Even if you put aside the methodological issues, Sunak isn't the 'safe pair of hands' that Callaghan, Major and Brown all were to much of the electorate - their respective doomed governments clawed back support once an election was on the horizon.

He is trying to come across as that, but his own party doesn't make it easy for him - just witness the nervous breakdown a significant part of it has had in the last 24 hours.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When leads get over a certain size, FPTP goes nuts and the exact distribution of seats becomes very erratic and unpredictable. If Labour were to have a lead in excess of 15pts (which they have never managed before) then almost anything would be at least possible. Of course that remains a big 'if'.

[afleitch]

Maybe.

While I do think current polls are underestimating the Lib Dems if there was a GE, they are less of a 'spoiler' for Labour than they were in 1997 or against the Tories in 2010. So that makes for Labour being able to penetrate into a lot of 'rural' seats with a direct swing. A majority bigger than 1997 would also not be able to rely on Scotland (to some extent) to pad it out. So Labour would have to do better in England by a heftier margin.

[oldtimer]

Anything is possible, but Labour people aren't getting carried away.

And the fact Sunak has actually achieved something useful this week has our punditocracy writing their periodic "don't write the Tories off" spiel - they have the Budget in a few weeks too.

As said by someone online who I respect - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but more a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

Two years out from 2010, the BBC thought that the Tories were on track of winning bigger than they did in 1983 and we all know how 2010 ended up. Here's an interesting video

True.

The Conservatives suffered from having an uncharismatic centrist Blair clone as leader at a time people where fed up with Blair and his centrism.

And the economy was stabilized by the time of the election which helped Labour recover a bit.

People wanted something radically different but none of the main 2 1/2 parties provided that at the time, so the changes where small from 2005.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anything is possible, but Labour people aren't getting carried away.

And the fact Sunak has actually achieved something useful this week has our punditocracy writing their periodic "don't write the Tories off" spiel - they have the Budget in a few weeks too.

As said by someone online who I respect - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but more a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

Two years out from 2010, the BBC thought that the Tories were on track of winning bigger than they did in 1983 and we all know how 2010 ended up. Here's an interesting video

True.

The Conservatives suffered from having an uncharismatic centrist Blair clone as leader at a time people where fed up with Blair and his centrism.

And the economy was stabilized by the time of the election which helped Labour recover a bit.

People wanted something radically different but none of the main 2 1/2 parties provided that at the time, so the changes where small from 2005.

No? David Cameron was not a particularly unpopular opposition leader, especially compared to previous Tory Opposition leaders. Cleggmania also suggests that floating voters weren't completely turned off from that sort either.

[TheTide]

Anything is possible, but Labour people aren't getting carried away.

And the fact Sunak has actually achieved something useful this week has our punditocracy writing their periodic "don't write the Tories off" spiel - they have the Budget in a few weeks too.

As said by someone online who I respect - its not a 1992 repeat Labour should be more worried about, but more a 2010. Still not sure if Starmer and co have "gamed" those scenarios as well as they should.

Two years out from 2010, the BBC thought that the Tories were on track of winning bigger than they did in 1983 and we all know how 2010 ended up. Here's an interesting video

True.

The Conservatives suffered from having an uncharismatic centrist Blair clone as leader at a time people where fed up with Blair and his centrism.

And the economy was stabilized by the time of the election which helped Labour recover a bit.

People wanted something radically different but none of the main 2 1/2 parties provided that at the time, so the changes where small from 2005.

No? David Cameron was not a particularly unpopular opposition leader, especially compared to previous Tory Opposition leaders. Cleggmania also suggests that floating voters weren't completely turned off from that sort either.

Cameron is a good example of how image/vibes/rhetoric or whatever word you want to use can be more important in deciding how the media (and, frankly, much of the electorate) views a politician. The Coalition period was the most right-wing (particularly in an economic sense) of the past thirteen years in policy terms. It also wasn't entirely absent of dog-whistling. As Steve Richards notes in his book The Prime Ministers, the BBC (left-wing biased bastards) effectively adopted the Cameron/Osborne line on economics as being unquestionable from around 2008 and anti-austerity advocates were effectively relegated to a similar position that anti-lockdowners were a decade later. The same phenomenon hasn't happened with Brexit (in either a pro or anti direction) perhaps because (well, almost certainly because) of there being a close national vote on the matter.

As for Cleggmania, it did have some element of "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!", even if the friendly fresh face thing was the primary reason for it. It's a shame that Twitter was only in its infancy then - they'd be a library collection of hilarious-in-hindsight tweets from lefties.

[Samof94]

Even if you put aside the methodological issues, Sunak isn't the 'safe pair of hands' that Callaghan, Major and Brown all were to much of the electorate - their respective doomed governments clawed back support once an election was on the horizon.

Still didn't save any of them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As for Cleggmania, it did have some element of "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!",...

Including, quite literally, many of the same people.

[Ragnaroni]

The Conservatives are a sh1tshow, I wouldn't be surprised if Sunak loses by a massive margin!

[MABA 2020]

The Tories are doomed, but I don't know if they're quite that doomed. My prediction would be a result in the high 300's for Labour.