The worst election result since 1935? a tale of two measures
This is a slightly longer version of the presentation I gave at a session of the Progressive Britain conference (16 May 2021) on Labour and its history, alongside Steven Fielding and Patrick Diamond.
How is one to judge the success of the Labour Party over the past century? In our Westminster-centric system it is little surprise that success is measured by achieving a majority in parliament. Only three leaders have achieved that – Attlee, Wilson and Blair. Labour has only twice been the largest party without a majority – in the 1970s, and in 1929, under MacDonald and Wilson. The 1924 Labour government was based on Labour as the second party. We might also ask who the Labour leaders were who deprived the Tories of a majority, without being the largest party. They were MacDonald, Brown and Corbyn. Those who have failed to do even this were Henderson, Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn.
But if one is interested in measuring degree of connection with the people, the reaching out, the support the Party received from the British people as a whole, the number of seats, nor the ability to form a government, are a good measure.
The reason for this is obvious and well known, but not well enough understood. It is that in FPTP there is (much of the time, but not always) a wild disproportion between support and seats. For Labour, the extent and direction of the disproportion has changed radically over elections. We can put it this way – at certain periods, the main determinant of electoral success for Labour has not been electoral support for Labour, but the quantity and distribution of support for other parties. Labour does not always deserve credit for winning, nor blame for losing.
What is interesting about 2017 and 2019 is that in both cases the seat share was very close to the vote share, for Labour that is. This previously happened only between 1951 and 1959, and in 1923. Otherwise the story of very significant disproportion of votes and seats. It was extraordinarily negative in the 1930s, especially in 1931, when 30 percent of votes yield 8 percent of seats. By contrast it was extraordinarily positive in the years 1997-2005. Labour won a landslide in 1997 with a vote share just lower that that with led to a loss in 1970.
As the 1935 result has been repeatedly referred to recently it is worth looking at a little more. In fact, it was Labour’s best performance in vote share of the interwar years, and saw an increase in the number of seats. Labour got 38 percent of the vote. But it got just 25 percent of the seats. Give or take one point, 38 percent was the Labour share in two elections in 1974 and in 1979. In 1974 that resulted first in a minority government, then a small majority government, and in 1979 a major loss. That 1935 share was 3 percentage points better than that of 2005, when Labour of course got a majority. A better share in 2017 than 2005 gave Labour increased seats compared with 2015, but in 2017 it was not even the largest party. And in 2019 Labour did better in share than in 2010 and 2015 but worse in seats. The reason was that for no fault of its own the system and the distribution of support for others, was no longer giving labour more seats than its share implied.
If we take that 1997 vote share as a benchmark, then we can see that Labour equalled or beat that in every general election from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. In 1997 Blair did as well, but no better, than Gaitskell in 1959, who lost. The really big Labour successes, with three percentage points more than 1997, include the famous 1945 election. But they also include 1951, when Labour had its greatest vote share ever, but lost, and 1966, which is the most forgotten Labour success of all.
In the years 1945-70 Labour never fell below 43 percent vote share. Since then it was only exceeded this level once, in 1997, and approached it only twice in 2001, and 2017 with 40 percent.
Since 1945 in terms of vote share ranked by the best performance of each leader has been in the order: Attlee, Wilson, Gaitskell, Blair and Corbyn. The worst have been, in decreasing badness, Foot, Brown, Miliband, Kinnock, Corbyn, Blair, Callaghan and Wilson. Corbyn has been neither the best, obviously, nor the worst.
This is also true in term of seat shares. The worst seat shares were obtained by Henderson, MacDonald, Attlee, Corbyn, Foot, Kinnock, Miliband, in that order (excluding 1918). The best, in order, by Blair, Blair, Attlee, Wilson, Blair. But, to return to my point: Henderson and Attlee were in 1931 and 1935 massively disadvantaged by the electoral system; Corbyn was not. But Blair was massively helped by the system and Attlee and Wilson much less so.
Looking to the future, how might we reflect on this past? Perhaps this is the way to think about it: there was a unique period from 1945 to 1970 when the vote share hovered between 43 and 48 percent. This was without question Labour’s great period of electoral, political and social success – the only moment it consistently got a (small) majority of the working class vote. What needs to be emulated it seems to me is the record of getting support, transforming the country, and keeping support, not least while in office. Labour’s greatest success, tellingly after years of government, came in 1951, when the system turfed it out. The only other time Labour increased its vote after being in office was in 1966, and that was its second-best vote share. Labour has not achieved this since.
Since 1970 the picture is very different – since 1970 the electorate has been fickle, but in long waves. Share has oscillated between 43 and less than 30. From 1970 to 1983 there was a collapse in vote share; the same thing happened between 1997 and 2010 (another 13 year period). From the peak of 2017, 2019 saw a major fall. The question is will this continue for more elections, as the record post-1970, and post-1997 suggest? Will recent history repeat itself, that is, will the next elections in say 2024 and 2029 get us back to 2010 or 1983? Let us hope not.