AHC: Worst possible Labour campaign, 1997

[Meadow]

The 20th anniversary of Labour's biggest ever landslide is almost upon us, and 1997 nostalgia is on the rise.

Tony Blair had been expected to be the next PM for years by the time the voters went to the polls. But memories of 1992 and Labour's apparent last-minute fumble we're still in people's minds. Blair himself is said not to have believed he would win an overall majority until the day before the election.

With the Tories in complete disarray and the Lib Dems not perceived as an alternative government (because 'they simply won't win', their eternal problem), it's likely that whatever Labour did in 1997, Blair would enter Downing Street. But, with a POD no earlier than January 1997, what can Labour realistically do that jeopardises their chances? They could certainly have won with a smaller majority, or been forced to make a deal with Paddy Ashdown.

Try to avoid extreme live boy/dead girl stuff, unless of course there was something that resembled that in OTL. Labour are still going to win - Blair being outed as Agent Lavender II on the day before the election is probably the only way to avoid that. But just how badly could the 1997 campaign - which is itself praised today and credited with some of the size of the majority - have gone?

 

[AgentRudda]

My immediate thought is that a large group on the left of the party protest against the manifesto and say that they will force the government into a left-wing direction should they enter government. Blair obviously repudiates this immediately and sends the enforcers, but the schism hits the front pages and destroys Blair's claim of a united party against the divided Tories. From what I've seen of the 1997 campaign, that featured prominently as a reason to vote Labour, and a huge public shouting match would stir up people's memories of Old Labour in the 1980s.

 

[Gorrister]

It's a tricky question - indeed, many in the party were concerned about winning a huge majority (Mullin doubted it, as did Campbell iirc). There are ways of getting a better Tory campaign, but that's not the question here.

Ecclestone made his donation to the party in January '97. Perhaps an earlier leakage of that? Or maybe the Clause 4 debate turns into a debacle instead (Campbell said there was a small chance of Blair being relieved from the leadership due to blowback)?

 

[von Mises]

My immediate thought is that a large group on the left of the party protest against the manifesto and say that they will force the government into a left-wing direction should they enter government. Blair obviously repudiates this immediately and sends the enforcers, but the schism hits the front pages and destroys Blair's claim of a united party against the divided Tories. From what I've seen of the 1997 campaign, that featured prominently as a reason to vote Labour, and a huge public shouting match would stir up people's memories of Old Labour in the 1980s.

Is there a large enough group of them? I can't remember which issue of Private Eye it was, but it seems there was some disquiet coming from Corbyn's wing of the party under Blair's leadership - now forcing a more left-wing approach is rather different from a leadership challenge, but the same question comes to mind - are there enough usual suspects for this to happen?

Or perhaps the question I'm asking should be: 'are there enough of the usual suspects for the media to make it look big?'

 

[iainbhx]

The Referendum party not existing would help, so make Sir Jams cancer more aggressive.

 

[AgentRudda]

The Referendum party not existing would help, so make Sir Jams cancer more aggressive.

As grim as it is liking a comment on someone having cancer, this would help for sure. Really added to the division and infighting of the Tories, and stole votes off Tory candidates, and Sir James running against David Mellor put the spotlight back on why David Mellor (and other Tories) were in the news for the wrong reasons.

 

[Thande]

I agree with Iain re. the Referendum Party. While it's going back a bit for a POD, having the Lib Dems do worse in '92 and fumble their offensive in the mid-90s would help a lot too: a lot of the Tories' losses (to Labour as well as to the Lib Dems themselves) were due to the Lib Dems cutting deeply into their traditional voters. Maybe something with the SNP too though I don't know enough to comment there.

It says something about FPTP that nothing I've just listed actually has anything to do with Meadow's challenge of something happening with the Labour campaign, yet it might have more impact on the number of seats Labour would win than that!

I would also emphasise just how close a lot of the results were (see map below) which has been used to argue that the Tories could have easily done even worse and been dealt a death blow, but equally applies to all those pale red seats which could have stayed blue based on a small national swing from OTL.