All election results are extraordinary, but some are more so than others. What are we to make of the bizarre ,June 2001 outcome in historical terms?
Tony Blair’s second victory defies comparisons. Not just because two consecutive full Labour terms have never happened before, but also because no prime minister of any party has ever chalked up two such results in succession. If history was the guide, we would be talking about the near-impossibility of a Labour defeat next time. Majorities of that size simply do not collapse all in one go. However, so many records have recently been smashed that another one cannot be ruled out.
Why do governments, especially Labour ones, founder? The simple answer is the obvious one: the economy, stupid. In the past, Labour governments were only ever elected at times of dire crisis, generally followed by the need for tight restraint, for which they naturally got the blame. Thus, in retrospect, all previous Labour administrations can be seen to have suffered the same fate: brought down directly or indirectly by the after-effects of pressure on the economy, and the need either to devalue or call on foreign help.
Since that time, however, there has been a significant turnaround. If the Tories had been sensible, they would have lost the 1992 election. They won it and, after ‘Black Wednesday’ a few months later, the Tories, not Labour, got the blame for the crisis. Moreover, Labour, not the Tories, got the benefit of the recovery that followed. Labour won the 1997 election, to a large extent, because of the time lag between the ‘feel bad’ and ‘feel good’ factors. The latter, which derived from an exceptional period of uninterrupted prosperity from the mid-1990s, did not begin to register until after the 1997 election, by which time Labour could link it to the undoubtedly impressive performance of Gordon Brown. The mood has continued with scarcely a glitch. Hence, in crude terms, the result: a ‘you’ve never had it so good’ victory with a vengeance. Low inflation, low unemployment, no major industrial unrest, a recent house price boom, a media-inept Tory leader and an unhappy opposition demoralised by the above. What better circumstances could there have been for the warm glow of relative contentment that dampens any public desire for change?
Will it go on? The big political question now is whether New Labour can offer more of the same or has an alternative. Both Margaret Thatcher in 1987 and, to some extent, John Major in 1992 were able to offer the carrots of the next stage in a Tory anti-state control crusade. Can Labour offer anything comparable?
There is a double danger in relying on the global economy to behave itself or of taking for granted Gordon’s midas touch. Not only do sustained periods of sunshine seldom occur, but even if this time one does, we cannot assume the electorate will continue to behave as in the past. Indeed, a whole generation is growing up that simply cannot remember anything other than prosperity and low inflation and which, in consequence, is unlikely to feel gratitude should these continue to occur.
At the same time, certain things happen – as both Harold Wilson and Thatcher discovered – to long-lasting governments that do not happen to newly elected ones. As time passes, the number of disgruntled ‘has-beens’ and ‘never-will-bes’ on the backbenches grows. People forget how bad the last lot were. Meanwhile the press, bored with kicking losers, turns on the government in earnest. Finally, in a one-party dominant state ministers get tired, megalomaniac, arrogant, slipshod and, on occasion, corrupt.
Since 1951, there have been three major electoral cycles: 1951-64 (Tory), 1964-79 (Labour, with a short 1970-74 interlude) and 1979-97 (Tory). It could be that we are now in a fourth, with some way to run. If so, the prize for runners in the Tory leadership race may not be worth a barrel-load of spit. On the other hand, as Thatcher famously remarked, in politics the unexpected usually happens. In a rapidly changing world, Labour succeeded in changing itself to keep pace. Whether it can continue to do so depends on its ability to fill the philosophical void which, but for the absence of a plausible opposition, would have been even more apparent in 1997 than it has been. The issue is whether Labour can go beyond competence and reconnect with a constituency of the worse-off, which this time didn’t vote Tory, but didn’t vote Labour either, and has possibly lost the habit.
If not, the stalking danger may come not from the decaying right, but from the enterprising and youth-inspiring party that has leapfrogged from the centre to the left and which threatens to capture the public imagination.