Could the next Labor majority exceed 1997?

[TheTide]

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.

No assumption needs to be made. Just look at the local election results around that time, as well as by-election results and polls. I'm basing my view that there is a desire for change now on those metrics. I made the mistake of relying on 'vibes' in 2015 and it led to a very grim election night experience.

[afleitch]

On that note;

https://options2040.co.uk/the-options-ahead-what-people-in-election-battlegrounds-think/

A 'think tank' poll highlighted in The Guardian

Not so clear cut for Labour. Lots of disengaged and undecided voters.

[adma]

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.

Which is another way of saying: if Labour could have done as well as it did w/*Corbyn* as leader, maybe it's a bigger voter tent than some give credit for.  Or, the kind of big tent that New Labour under Blair represented might not have been simply a fluke of the moment.

[mileslunn]

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.

Which is another way of saying: if Labour could have done as well as it did w/*Corbyn* as leader, maybe it's a bigger voter tent than some give credit for.  Or, the kind of big tent that New Labour under Blair represented might not have been simply a fluke of the moment.

I think Labour could have won 2017 with a better leader but that was only close as May ran a disastrous campaign.  If she ran a decent one, results would have looked more like 2019 than 2017.  2019 I think was unwinnable due to Brexit but a better leader could have probably kept Tories to either a bare majority thus wouldn't have lasted the full term or another hung parliament with Tories being largest party.  If Tories + DUP less than half, would have forced another vote on EU membership and possible Brexit cancelled.

[adma]

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.

Which is another way of saying: if Labour could have done as well as it did w/*Corbyn* as leader, maybe it's a bigger voter tent than some give credit for.  Or, the kind of big tent that New Labour under Blair represented might not have been simply a fluke of the moment.

I think Labour could have won 2017 with a better leader but that was only close as May ran a disastrous campaign.  If she ran a decent one, results would have looked more like 2019 than 2017.  2019 I think was unwinnable due to Brexit but a better leader could have probably kept Tories to either a bare majority thus wouldn't have lasted the full term or another hung parliament with Tories being largest party.  If Tories + DUP less than half, would have forced another vote on EU membership and possible Brexit cancelled.

But even beyond May (or Corbyn), the message might have been that the Labour *brand* wasn't as toxic, from a modern-day natural-governing-party perspective, as imagined.  And that non-toxicity's playing out in the form of Sir Keir.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How are you actually defining this?

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

They were impressive in what we might think of as upper working/lower middle class sort of areas, and that's very good for Labour for so many reasons (and, incidentally, isn't it interesting that the sort of people who are especially common in such places are unusually likely to be involved themselves or have family members involved in pay disputes with the government, one way or another?), but I wouldn't categorize those as 'ordinary middle class in Middle England', if you follow. Though there were a few wards here and there that match that description where Labour did win, but you always get a few random results, as you know. Now the LibDems and the Greens on the other hand...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But even beyond May (or Corbyn), the message might have been that the Labour *brand* wasn't as toxic, from a modern-day natural-governing-party perspective, as imagined.  And that non-toxicity's playing out in the form of Sir Keir.

The whole 'Labour isn't Labour' thing that was pretty deafening in certain circles throughout 2019 it came up so often has turned out to be something of a blessing in disguise, as it meant the Party brand itself was shielded from association with a deeply unpopular leadership.

[adma]

But even beyond May (or Corbyn), the message might have been that the Labour *brand* wasn't as toxic, from a modern-day natural-governing-party perspective, as imagined.  And that non-toxicity's playing out in the form of Sir Keir.

The whole 'Labour isn't Labour' thing that was pretty deafening in certain circles throughout 2019 it came up so often has turned out to be something of a blessing in disguise, as it meant the Party brand itself was shielded from association with a deeply unpopular leadership.

Or while 1983's "longest suicide note" aura pertained to the party in general, its 2019 equivalent was very much leadership-contained.

[Sol]

If there is a 2010-esque result, which minor parties does Labour likely work with?

(this is wishcasting for my dream of a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition)

[adma]

If there is a 2010-esque result, which minor parties does Labour likely work with?

(this is wishcasting for my dream of a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition)

Actually, here's a different kind of speculation: that a Lab-Lib Dem deal might work out to be not nearly so disastrous for the Lib Dems as Cameron-Clegg was...

[Cassius]

If there is a 2010-esque result, which minor parties does Labour likely work with?

(this is wishcasting for my dream of a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition)

Plaid will be too small in number to make much of difference (they’ll win about 3-4 seats tops under the new boundaries) in the event of a hung parliament. So that leaves the SNP and the Lib Dems. Labour and the SNP, as I’m sure you know, have poor relations and the price that the SNP would wish to extract (another independence referendum) probably isn’t worth paying. Relations with the Lib Dems aren’t as bad (at least between the current leaderships of both parties), but again, the price they’d wish to extract for a formal agreement (some form of PR, likely without a referendum) isn’t worth paying either.

Unless Labour falls really short, ie it fails to win more than 300 seats, I don’t really see the incentive for making a formal agreement with any of the smaller parties. Unless the SNP and the Lib Dems are prepared to join with the Tories in voting down a minority Labour government (which I think is unlikely at least in the first couple of years of a hung parliament), dealing with the smaller parties on a case by case basis would seem to be the best option.

[afleitch]

How are you actually defining this?

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

They were impressive in what we might think of as upper working/lower middle class sort of areas, and that's very good for Labour for so many reasons (and, incidentally, isn't it interesting that the sort of people who are especially common in such places are unusually likely to be involved themselves or have family members involved in pay disputes with the government, one way or another?), but I wouldn't categorize those as 'ordinary middle class in Middle England', if you follow. Though there were a few wards here and there that match that description where Labour did win, but you always get a few random results, as you know. Now the LibDems and the Greens on the other hand...

I noticed this as well. Labour are really advancing from a 1983 position (London, Scotland and diverse/young Met seats etc aside) in swathes of the country to try and win a majority. What Labour needed to see was the type of inroads it made in the Midlands/North in the '87 and '92 which the locals confirmed. The Labour brand has been solidified enough to take most of these seats off the table. Labour has been helped by the fact the electorate is much more elastic.

My own view is that the psychological impact of 18 years of Tory rule has effectively been condensed into the last three years. Electoral behaviour has similarly followed both at locals and at by-elections.

The recent locals are most analogous to the 1994 locals, the last under Smith. It's comfortable. Not a landslide. And not Blair.

The difference (Scotland aside again) is that the South is undergoing a massive shift that the 2019 results have somewhat obscured. This is/was core Cameronian territory; what he was able to secure in opposition to ensure that the previous twenty years of Tory/Lib Dem tussling wasn't going to deny them. Sort of. They held out against residual 'Cleggasm' in 2010 but built their eventual majority in 2015 on the Lib Dems collapse.

Now they are estranged. They are at odds with the Tories on Brexit and the culture war proxy. This is where the next election could be a Saturnian apocalypse. What seats fall, and to which party, will undoubtedly be a partially coordinated ground game that won't reveal itself until election night.

[Flyersfan232]

keir starmer is too boring for that

[Torrain]

keir starmer is too boring for that

Charisma is not always the defining factor in a British electoral win.

The lanslides of 1931 and 1945, which represent the largest national swings in British political history, elected Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin - two of the most mild-mannered PMs of the past century.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The lanslides of 1931 and 1945, which represent the largest national swings in British political history, elected Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin - two of the most mild-mannered PMs of the past century.

I wouldn't describe Baldwin as mild-mannered exactly, but he wasn't charismatic in a conventional sense. His general vibe was more of a headmaster who was quite happy to use the cane at short and perhaps arbitrary notice.

[TheTide]

The lanslides of 1931 and 1945, which represent the largest national swings in British political history, elected Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin - two of the most mild-mannered PMs of the past century.

I wouldn't describe Baldwin as mild-mannered exactly, but he wasn't charismatic in a conventional sense. His general vibe was more of a headmaster who was quite happy to use the cane at short and perhaps arbitrary notice.

Compared to the likes of Douglas-Home, Heath, Major, May and Truss that makes him Gandhi.               

[oldtimer]

keir starmer is too boring for that

Charisma is not always the defining factor in a British electoral win.

The lanslides of 1931 and 1945, which represent the largest national swings in British political history, elected Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin - two of the most mild-mannered PMs of the past century.

The circumstances of 1931 and 1945 where unusual.

In 1931 the Labour and Liberal parties had split, with the splinters joining the Conservatives under the incumbent ex-Labour PM who had been thrown out of his own party.

1945 was 10 years without an election, Labour would have won the 1940 election if it hadn't been cancelled, and a lot of pressure had accumulated to create a landslide.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Neither of the two most charismatic postwar leaders of major political parties (Gaitskell and Kinnock) won an election. In Gaitskell's case it is probable that he would have done the second time around had he lived, but in general this is proof enough that charisma is not a decisive factor in British elections. It may even have been a net negative for Kinnock.

[CumbrianLefty]

Interesting that you pick those over Blair and Johnson, though I can see why.

It certainly didn't take long for Kinnock's charisma to be turned against him, that's for sure.

[TheTide]

Hmm, have we forgotten that IDS was once Leader of the Opposition? 

[Torrain]

The lanslides of 1931 and 1945, which represent the largest national swings in British political history, elected Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin - two of the most mild-mannered PMs of the past century.

I wouldn't describe Baldwin as mild-mannered exactly, but he wasn't charismatic in a conventional sense. His general vibe was more of a headmaster who was quite happy to use the cane at short and perhaps arbitrary notice.

That's a fairer description. My knowledge of Westminster in the 20s is a bit thin, so I end up generalising Baldwin as a contrasting figure with Lloyd George, whose antics tends to make most most look mild-mannered in comparison.

[Torrain]

Hmm, have we forgotten that IDS was once Leader of the Opposition? 

_{"The quiet man is here to stay, and he's turning up the volume!"}

[Flyersfan232]

Hmm, have we forgotten that IDS was once Leader of the Opposition? 

how did that turn out?

[CumbrianLefty]

Hmm, have we forgotten that IDS was once Leader of the Opposition? 

_{"The quiet man is here to stay, and he's turning up the volume!"}

Still one of the most genuinely hilarious political moments of my lifetime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Best part was that he cocked up the delivery so badly that 'and he's turning up the volume' ended up as a diminuendo.