Could the next Labor majority exceed 1997?

[adma]

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.

What *did* "save" them from greater annihilation, though, was that they already had so much vestigially bombproof incumbency in place which, thanks to localism and often for lack of a galvanized and "trustworthy" alternative, wound up holding on, even if by greatly reduced shares and margins.  And even on the losing end, the same can be said about Michael Foot's Labour in '83--and particularly how they did, seatwise, vs the Lib/SDP Alliance.  (It also explains why, in France, the Macronistas fell short of the mega-mega-sweep many were anticipating in the second round of legislative voting in 2017.)

[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.

What *did* "save" them from greater annihilation, though, was that they already had so much vestigially bombproof incumbency in place which, thanks to localism and often for lack of a galvanized and "trustworthy" alternative, wound up holding on, even if by greatly reduced shares and margins.  And even on the losing end, the same can be said about Michael Foot's Labour in '83--and particularly how they did, seatwise, vs the Lib/SDP Alliance.  (It also explains why, in France, the Macronistas fell short of the mega-mega-sweep many were anticipating in the second round of legislative voting in 2017.)

Given this is Britain we are talking about. How does Brexit's economics play into this??

[Frodo]

Labour On Track For 140-Seat Majority At Next General Election, Bombshell Poll Shows

[YL]

Labour On Track For 140-Seat Majority At Next General Election, Bombshell Poll Shows

The poll has issues, but the headline writer should be aware that 470 seats would be a majority of 290, not 140.

[Coldstream]

Yes, and we have to be prepared for it - which means no Jared O’Mara’s in seats that have 15-18k majorities that could go.

[adma]

Any poll that shows Reform UK as an outsized "determining factor" should be treated as dicey, given how they've underperformed expectations in virtually every byelection or local recently (or the general pattern of drastic e-day falloff that's plagued UKIP and Brexit in the past)

[DL]

I'm not sure I understand how this poll could have Labour at 35% and the Tories at 23% - that only adds up to 58% and i don't see how 42% are voting Lib Dem, Green, SNP etc...

[YL]

I'm not sure I understand how this poll could have Labour at 35% and the Tories at 23% - that only adds up to 58% and i don't see how 42% are voting Lib Dem, Green, SNP etc...

They have given separate percentages for "Don't Know", unusually for a British poll.  Indeed the write up describes Don't Know as "winning" two constituencies (Aberdeenshire North & Moray East and Boston & Skegness).

[mileslunn]

Possible but my guess would be no.  Generally in British politics, opposition tends to poll higher in between elections than what they get on election day.  I am not suggesting Tories will win, that is while not impossible, a real long shot.  Maybe a 10% chance and even if Tories are largest party, unless it is similar to 2017 they most likely get defeated on King's speech.  Reason why I think it will be smaller than 1997 are the following

1.  Sunak is a safe pair of hands unlike Truss so people who always vote Tory but feel party has overstayed its welcome will probably come home as most of them still mistrust Labour despite Starmer's move closer to centre so feel strong opposition will keep Labour on its toes and less likely more activist wing (your Bergeron's, Long-Bailey, Abbott, McDonnell types) have too much influence. 

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely

3.  Starmer is unlike Blair a boring and dull type.  Doesn't scare people like Corbyn did, but doesn't excite people like Blair did.  He is somewhat like Biden who won in 2020, but not as big a landslide as Obama did in 2008 and Obama was more like Blair in young, charismatic, and excited people.

While a lot can change, I think a landslide bigger than 1997 is possible but unlikely even if Labour wins by bigger popular vote margin as vote much less efficient (in 1997 they weren't getting North Korean like margins in some urban progressive areas like they are now).  Even a Labour majority I think is far from certain.  Only reason I feel somewhat optimistic on their chances of a majority is thanks to SNP problems as Scotland won't go Tory so SNP declining will help Labour there. 

[mileslunn]

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...

I think largely true although in some rural southern constituencies and posh areas of London, people can stomach voting Liberal Democrat but Labour is a bridge too far.  Liberals in Canada not much different than NDP today yet there are loads of places that will go Liberal but if NDP main alternative go Conservative (i.e. 905 belt, wealthy urban areas) so I imagine some of that in UK.  Most voters don't pay too close attention to policy detail so party brand and historical image matter a fair bit. 

At same time where Liberal Democrats could come in key is if Labour wins a narrow majority.  The more left wing elements of party may threaten to vote down budget or bills unless goes further to left and I could see Labour turning to LibDems or using this threat to keep those types in line. 

While would support most, I think there are a few areas of difference

1.  On tax policy, I think LibDems for mansion tax but against wealth tax.  Also for additional rate a hike of 1 or 2% they would probably support, but if Labour runs in putting it back to 50% like was in 2010 or even higher, LibDems likely vote that down.  46% or 47% probably could get away with and maybe 48%.  Mind you I don't think Starmer will introduce a wealth tax or raise additional rate that much if at all. 

2.  On nationalization front, probably okay with bringing back rail into public ownership as long as done by not renewing contracts as they expire.  But any further nationalization likely opposes.  Although to be fair only other one Starmer has proposed is creating a state run energy company (not nationalizing existing) to compete with the big six and depending on cost LibDems may oppose if too costly.

3.  One area may go to left of Labour is immigration.  I believe LibDems most pro-immigration party so if Labour plans crackdown here in hung parliament may have to turn to Tories.  Many traditional red wall voters want less immigration although younger urban types fine with higher levels but since former constituencies more at risk than latter, wouldn't be surprised if Labour runs on reducing immigration like they did in 2010 and 2015. 

4.  I believe Labour wants to tax private schools and I could see LibDems opposing that.

5.  Labour has in past opposed NHS contracting out while LibDems are more in middle here.  Don't embrace it like Tories, but don't oppose it either.

I think if Corbyn were still leader, LibDems would oppose many of his ideas, but with Starmer much less.

[JimJamUK]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party support, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

[mileslunn]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party suggest, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

Wasn't in past more identification as one was Tory because of where they lived, class and profession and Labour for same reason.  Whereas now more ideology as you have fewer wets than in past and fewer blue collar populists so some change.  But it is true UK doesn't have near the polarization like US does.  In US a lot hate those of other party with a passion and many will always vote a certain way no matter what and if dislike their chosen party, they just stay home and not vote at all, not switch parties.  In some ways more like rest of Europe where you are seeing more parties and combined totals of traditional much lower than historically the case. 

Still like US you do have echo chambers at least when it comes to what media people read but not on television like you do in US.  After all most who read Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Daily Express, Times vote Conservative while most who read Guardian, Daily Mirror, and Independent vote Labour.  Financial Times and Economist somewhat more diverse and a lot there vote LibDem as many who read both traditional Tories but voted Remain unlike others mentioned who mostly not only vote Tory but voted Leave in Brexit referendum. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(in 1997 they weren't getting North Korean like margins in some urban progressive areas like they are now).

What on Earth are you talking about? Labour majorities in constituencies vaguely matching that description were generally extremely large in 1997 as well. What was unusual about 2019 is that they remained so despite everything else, but then they'll certainly swing a lot less next time around; much as the swings to Labour were weak in the South Wales Valleys constituencies in 1997 as they'd already hit landslide conditions in them under local boy Kinnock.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party suggest, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

Wasn't in past more identification as one was Tory because of where they lived, class and profession and Labour for same reason.  Whereas now more ideology as you have fewer wets than in past and fewer blue collar populists so some change.  But it is true UK doesn't have near the polarization like US does.  In US a lot hate those of other party with a passion and many will always vote a certain way no matter what and if dislike their chosen party, they just stay home and not vote at all, not switch parties.  In some ways more like rest of Europe where you are seeing more parties and combined totals of traditional much lower than historically the case.  

Still like US you do have echo chambers at least when it comes to what media people read but not on television like you do in US.  After all most who read Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Daily Express, Times vote Conservative while most who read Guardian, Daily Mirror, and Independent vote Labour.  Financial Times and Economist somewhat more diverse and a lot there vote LibDem as many who read both traditional Tories but voted Remain unlike others mentioned who mostly not only vote Tory but voted Leave in Brexit referendum.  

Issue is papers aren't actually that powerful anymore. The most read papers are the two you don't even mention, the Evening Standard and the Metro, both freesheets who make every effort to appeal to everyone simultaneously - populism in its most mushy iteration. The once hugely influential Sun has collapsed in every metric, and I would not be surprised if it vanishes in the future. The Express and the Mail get by on their geriatric buyers (the Mail is also bolstered by its celeb-oriented web presence, but the politics is secondary there) but are not agenda setters in the same way they once were. The broadsheets are barely relevant at all (if they ever were) outside of their small niches.

[mileslunn]

(in 1997 they weren't getting North Korean like margins in some urban progressive areas like they are now).

What on Earth are you talking about? Labour majorities in constituencies vaguely matching that description were generally extremely large in 1997 as well. What was unusual about 2019 is that they remained so despite everything else, but then they'll certainly swing a lot less next time around; much as the swings to Labour were weak in the South Wales Valleys constituencies in 1997 as they'd already hit landslide conditions in them under local boy Kinnock.

True although in 2017, Labour margins in your urban core areas were generally bigger than 1997 despite losing overall.  There were more Labour 70%+ seats in 2017 than 1997.

[Хahar 🤔]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party support, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

Obviously British voters are not at all like American voters, but with the erosion of traditional partisan loyalties they resemble Canadian voters a lot more than they used to. What this would suggest is that in a landslide election of the sort that we might get, there would be a lot of very unexpected seats falling to Labour.

[adma]

2.  Polarization while not as bad as US, is larger than in past so winning in constituencies Tories won by 40 points in 2019 seems unlikely.

It’s absolutely not. In the post-war period our 2 major parties used to get 90% of the vote together and elections were usually quite close and voting patterns semi-stable. A key feature of modern British elections is how the electorate have next to no absolute loyalty to political parties, if you piss them off then they will go elsewhere. 4 years ago the Conservatives came 5th in a national election with 9% of the vote and then months later won a landslide with 44% of the vote. That’s not a stable, partisan electorate. Labour won’t be winning many constituencies with 40% Conservative majorities, but the suggestion they will is largely down to crap MRP (a consistent feature has been a flattening of party support, the one above has Labour’s vote falling in its safest seats despite absolutely surging in safe Tory seats).

Obviously British voters are not at all like American voters, but with the erosion of traditional partisan loyalties they resemble Canadian voters a lot more than they used to. What this would suggest is that in a landslide election of the sort that we might get, there would be a lot of very unexpected seats falling to Labour.

Let's remember that it's a different kind of polarization these days--more of an urban/rural sorting thing than the class/cultural-based polarization of old.  But *also* compared to the postwar years, there's more elbow room for dissident options, Lib Dems not excluded (but also including independent/localist forces in local elections).

And the sorting is such is that the "lot of very unexpected seats" would probably be propelled by Labour votes in "expected" locations (i.e. urban centres within rural constituencies).

[progressive85]

Just a question to my British friends:

How long was the longest time in government?  Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives were from 1979 I believe and then there was a second PM and it all lasted until 1997.  18 years is a very long time in power.

So far, the Conservatives have had control since 2010, so that's 13 years...

Is fatigue with the ruling party if it's past 10 years in power part of the general feeling "It's time for a change" in the UK?

Also, is Keir Starmer guaranteed to be the next Prime Minister should the Labour Party win and what are everyday British people's opinion of him?

[Frodo]

3.  One area may go to left of Labour is immigration.  I believe LibDems most pro-immigration party so if Labour plans crackdown here in hung parliament may have to turn to Tories.  Many traditional red wall voters want less immigration although younger urban types fine with higher levels but since former constituencies more at risk than latter, wouldn't be surprised if Labour runs on reducing immigration like they did in 2010 and 2015. 

Interestingly, it appears that Brexit has resulted in more immigration to the United Kingdom -not less.  So if Keir Starmer were to run on rejoining the European Union (albeit mainly on the EU's terms), that could actually lead to the outcome the blue-collar traditional Labour vote in the North want. 

[JimJamUK]

Interestingly, it appears that Brexit has resulted in more immigration to the United Kingdom -not less.  So if Keir Starmer were to run on rejoining the European Union (albeit mainly on the EU's terms), that could actually lead to the outcome the blue-collar traditional Labour vote in the North want. 

Brexit hasn’t resulted in more immigration, it’s resulted in a lot less. Against that, the government has allowed massive numbers of people to come from outside the EU which has more than made up for the EU migrants no longer able to come. A lot of this migration is from one off schemes, but the large labour shortages we have in many industries will likely lead to consistently higher immigration which no government (especially the current Conservative government) seem able and willing to fix/stop.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, the two reasons to be sceptical of a larger Labour majority than 1997 are a) the fact that, no matter what happens, Labour will not be winning every single seat but one in Central and urban Scotland, and b) Labour has shown no sign of appealing particularly to typical middle class voters in 'Middle England' in any actual elections. They do not need either to win a majority or even to win a large majority, but they would do in order to top 1997.

[Frodo]

Interestingly, it appears that Brexit has resulted in more immigration to the United Kingdom -not less.  So if Keir Starmer were to run on rejoining the European Union (albeit mainly on the EU's terms), that could actually lead to the outcome the blue-collar traditional Labour vote in the North want.  

Brexit hasn’t resulted in more immigration, it’s resulted in a lot less. Against that, the government has allowed massive numbers of people to come from outside the EU which has more than made up for the EU migrants no longer able to come. A lot of this migration is from one off schemes, but the large labour shortages we have in many industries will likely lead to consistently higher immigration which no government (especially the current Conservative government) seem able and willing to fix/stop.

EU supporters should still make the case that it has.  The better to muddy the waters against Brexiteers by forcing them to explain things aren't what they seem...    

[CumbrianLefty]

Anyway, the two reasons to be sceptical of a larger Labour majority than 1997 are a) the fact that, no matter what happens, Labour will not be winning every single seat but one in Central and urban Scotland, and b) Labour has shown no sign of appealing particularly to typical middle class voters in 'Middle England' in any actual elections. They do not need either to win a majority or even to win a large majority, but they would do in order to top 1997.

How are you actually defining this?

Some of their Midlands results last month surely weren't bad in this regard.

[adma]

Anyway, the two reasons to be sceptical of a larger Labour majority than 1997 are a) the fact that, no matter what happens, Labour will not be winning every single seat but one in Central and urban Scotland, and b) Labour has shown no sign of appealing particularly to typical middle class voters in 'Middle England' in any actual elections. They do not need either to win a majority or even to win a large majority, but they would do in order to top 1997.

How are you actually defining this?

Some of their Midlands results last month surely weren't bad in this regard.

Maybe it's more by way of "active" vs "passive"?  (That is, any likely Middle England appeal being more swept-up-in-the-wave happenstance--and perhaps, yes, with reinforcement by favourable spot local results--than part of a total-domination national strategy)

[MABA 2020]

Just a question to my British friends:
How long was the longest time in government?  Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives were from 1979 I believe and then there was a second PM and it all lasted until 1997.  18 years is a very long time in power.

18 years is a the longest in modern history, to find a government that lasted longer you'd have to go way way back, before universal suffrage (early 1800's)

Is fatigue with the ruling party if it's past 10 years in power part of the general feeling "It's time for a change" in the UK?

Yes there's definitely a change feeling in the country currently, as there was in the late 00's at the end of the last Labour gov and I assume was the same in the mid 90's.

Also, is Keir Starmer guaranteed to be the next Prime Minister should the Labour Party win and what are everyday British people's opinion of him?

Keir is guaranteed to be PM even if its a hung parliament, but most aren't very excited about him. He's benefiting from the fact everyone has decided the Tories have to go, regardless of what they think of Starmer. And to be fair to him he has made Labour seem acceptable to a lot of voters who voted Tory in the last election to prevent a Labour gov.