Opinion: Going to the polls after a Labour government

What lessons does the past offer for the future?

If there is one thing history teaches us it’s that the Liberals invariably face a challenging time at the polls following a period of Labour government.

Indeed, taken together, the evidence from a string of post-Labour government 20th century elections makes for depressing reading. That said, recent electoral history does offer a glimmer of hope.

This downward trend in Liberal support began with the election of the first – minority – Labour government of 1923, when Ramsay MacDonald became prime minister with Liberal support.

The Liberals came within a whisker of Labour in the popular vote, taking 29.6 per cent to Labour’s 30.5 per cent, but, with 159 seats to Labour’s 191, were obliged to let Labour try to form a government. But less than a year later, when MacDonald’s government collapsed and Britain again went to the polls, the Liberals crashed and burned, so to speak, polling 17.6 per cent of the vote and emerging with just 40 seats.

In 1931, following the election of another minority Labour government two years earlier, in 1929, things were complicated by the emergence of a National Government, which saw the Liberal vote split three ways with disastrous consequences, as well as a collapse in the Labour vote.

But the usual pattern re-emerged in 1951, when the Conservatives took office after the 1945-51 Labour government, and the Liberal vote slumped to a historic low of 2.5 per cent, with just six Liberal MPs surviving.

Following a Liberal revival at the 1964 election, and the election of Harold Wilson’s Labour government (when the party gained 11.2 per cent of the vote), the party again lost ground in the subsequent 1966 (8.5 per cent) and 1970 (7.5 per cent) elections — even if, thanks to the vagaries of the electoral system, it emerged with three more seats (12 in all) in 1966 but just six in 1970.

Fast forward to 1979, and the Liberal Party again saw its vote fall back – to 13.8 per of the vote compared to 18.3 per cent in October 1974 – with a consequent drop in seats. Then leader David Steel is convinced the party’s victory in the Edge Hill by-election just weeks before the 1979 poll gave the party “a valuable eve of election bounce”.

However, the evidence from the last two elections — following the 1997-2001 Labour government — is less clear-cut.

In 2001 the party emerged with 1.5 per cent more of the popular vote (18.3 per cent) and six more seats (52) than in 1997; and the upward trend continued in 2005 when the party gained 22.1 per cent of the vote and 62 seats.

So have the Liberal Democrats finally reversed the traditonal downward spiral of support sufferd by the Liberals after a period of Labour office? And does this bode well for the next (most likely 2010) election?

It’s hard to say. The Liberal Democrats are undoubtedly stronger and better organised than the Liberal Party was for many a decade beforehand. And depending on how the electoral dice land, there is even a possibility that the party could end up holding the balance of power at the next election.

However, the key factors in determining whether or not the Liberal Democrats can again buck the trend of electoral decline are likely to be (1) the strength of the surge in Conservative support, (2) the size of the drop in Labour support, and (3) the extent to which the Lib Dems can hold on to their vote in their electoral strongholds up and down the land.

All one can say with any real certainty at this stage is that 2010 is likely to present the party with its toughest electoral challenge for many a year.

* York Membery is a contributing editor to the Journal of Liberal History.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Surely it’s not so much that the Lib Dems do badly after Labour has been in power, as that the Lib Dems do badly when Labour loses power to the Tories?

  • David Heigham 15th Mar '09 - 7:04pm

    History is history. Part of history is that this latest Labour Government has been more authoritarian, and centralist than any other (at least since Atlee’s short 1950-51 term). This latest Labour government has also done very well by the rich. To many people, Cameron’s Tories look like more of the same with fresher faces. Tha thas never been the case before. If you do not want more of the same, the choice is LibDem, Nationalist, Green, BNP or UKIP. That is to say, most of the voters who want change are, at present, ours to play for; not automatic switchers to the Tories.

  • Liberal Neil 16th Mar '09 - 12:10pm

    “All one can say with any real certainty at this stage is that 2010 is likely to present the party with its toughest electoral challenge for many a year.”

    It’s incisive commentary like that which makes LDV worth every penny of the subscription 😉

  • David Allen 16th Mar '09 - 1:33pm

    Propping up an unpopular government is no doubt bad for our health, irrespective of whether the unpopular government is red or blue.

    1924, when Labour really were the new kids on the block and we finished almost neck-and-neck, is just not relevant to us 80 years later.

    I think Anon1 has this right. When people have got fed up with Tory cuts, we have generally done well in attracting those who want change and increased spending, but not too much of it. When people get fed up with a Labour government, it is harder for us to find a consistent narrative. Inevitably we will often find ourselves saying “they’ve not done enough for X” alongside “they’ve spent too much on Y”. This may make sense to the knowledgeable. But the ordinary voter gets muddled, and is sadly liable to conclude that it is we who got muddled.

  • Too many people still see Labour as the competition and the Conservatives as the opposition.

    Both are the opposition.

    However, as in 1997 we were fighting against a tired Tory government and concentrated mainly on that, so today we are fighting against a tired Labour government and should concentrate on that – pointing out what they’ve done wrong and what we would do to fix it.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 31st May - 8:21am
    @ Joe B, I can't see the FT article at the moment because of the Paywall. I've noticed you're fond of saying things like "This...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 31st May - 8:19am
    @George Kendall The article I quoted is, of course, not gospel. It’s just one side of the argument, and potentially a very dangerous one. The...
  • User AvatarAntony Watts 31st May - 8:09am
    Actually we don’t have a single Dom Covid problem. We have two, maybe interconnected problems. First, Cummings is not the man we need anywhere near...
  • User AvatarAntony Watts 31st May - 8:06am
    Actually we don’t have a single Dom Covid problem. We have two, maybe interconnected problems. First, Cummings is not the man we need anywhere near...
  • User AvatarAntony Watts 31st May - 7:56am
    I tell you what: home schooling is fun. I learned a lot, especially chemistry. And my wife now understands adverbs vs adjectives. We did this...
  • User AvatarHilton Marlton 31st May - 7:48am
    I've always longed to see Dillie make a guest appearance on the stage at Conference. This is another treasure in a line of pithy songs.