Politicians dream of landslide victories – but they are a curse, not a blessing

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/election-landslides-labour-tory-majority

Version 0 of 1.

When Theresa May called the election seven weeks ago, almost everyone assumed that a landslide was in the bag, and the only point of contention was quite how stonking it would be. Pundits told us that campaigns don’t shift votes significantly. Her landslide was safe. Are the pundits about to be proved as haywire as pollsters?

Implicit in all this is the assumption that landslides are inherently good things and that securing one is the holy grail to success in government. But what if this assumption is wrong, and landslides can be as much a curse as a boon to prime ministers? If so, perhaps May will be counting her blessings that her campaign has gone pear-shaped.

Leaders themselves obsess about achieving landslides: it is the macho gold standard by which they and their teams weigh themselves. Margaret Thatcher was jubilant about her massive vote in 1983 and 1987, while Tony Blair fretted neurotically during the 2005 general election campaign that his margin of victory would not be as big as it had been in 1997 and 2001, when Labour won more than 400 seats.

No Conservative leader since 1945 has achieved these numbers – not even Margaret Thatcher, whose most emphatic result in 1983 saw her achieve 397 seats to Labour’s 209. Exceeding that would gift May with the title of greatest Conservative victor since the second world war.

The term “landslide” became popular in the US in the 19th century, though no one is sure how sweeping a victory must be to merit the accolade. The margin commonly used is 10% of the popular vote above the principal opposition, though this is rare. Clement Attlee’s margin in 1945 in the great landslide victory over the Conservatives was a mere 8%.

A close examination of government performance since 1945 shows that landslides create as many problems as they solve. Veteran election analyst Dennis Kavanagh is emphatic: “There are no advantages to be gained from a landslide.”

What does matter is achieving an effective “working majority”. Until the late 1960s, this figure could be as low as 15 to 30 MPs; but since the Heath government of 1970-74, MPs have become much less biddable to whips and much more constituency-focused. We live in the era of the anarchic MP. Two of the greatest rebels of the last 25 years, Iain Duncan Smith and Jeremy Corbyn, went on to lead their parties.

Since the 1970s, with the added unpredictability of byelections, a safe working majority is now in the 35-50 range – the sweet spot for which all parties should be aiming.

The drawbacks of a landslide are considerable. The leadership and government can become complacent and out of touch. With no opposition to fight, they start fighting each other. The lack of an effective opposition diminishes the quality of parliamentary scrutiny and debate. The losing party that has been humiliated in the election traditionally bins its leader and its failed policies, and bounces back with rejuvenated image and direction, which may be good for the country, but not so comfortable for the government.

Large majorities in parliament mean dangerous numbers of MPs have no chance of being appointed to ministerial posts – 200 MPs or more without ministerial jobs, and with little immediate prospect of gaining one, can make parliamentary management an utter nightmare. A large government majority further inclines backbenchers to rebel, as doing so does not threaten a defeat.

No surprise then that Harold Macmillan’s government after 1959, which was voted in with a majority of 100, achieved far less than Churchill’s government after 1951 – which had a majority of just 17, and had secured 200,000 fewer votes than Attlee’s Labour party. Yet during Churchill’s government the Conservative party embraced the welfare state and mixed economy, oversaw full employment, and began the long, slow process of decolonisation.

A safe working majority is now in the 35-50 range – that's the sweet spot for which all parties should be aiming.

Harold Wilson’s Labour government after October 1964, which came to office with a majority of just five, achieved more than his administration after the landslide of March 1966, with a majority of 96. The earlier government began embedding a series of economic and social reforms, while the latter was notorious for cabinet infighting and achieved little. One of Wilson’s relatively few achievements as prime minister, the founding of the Open University, was initiated in the first term. The seminal Race Relations Act of 1965 was more enlightened than his second-term Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1968.

Blair’s third government from 2005-07 was his most effective, when he drove through his choice and diversity agenda, yet it came to power with his smallest margin – just 68. His majority in 1997, an eye-watering 179, ushered in what has been described as “the most expensive work experience programme in British history”. This belittles his achievement – not the least the Good Friday agreement, constitutional reform and the minimum wage – though his first term remains the most disappointing given its potential.

Attlee’s 1945-50 government is the one exception. But he was helped by coming to office with a raft of policies clearly formulated during the war, and notably lost momentum after 1947, largely due to exhaustion – a very present threat today.

The lesson of history is clear: landslides may bring joy in the early hours of Friday morning after polling day; but before very long, the taste of the champagne can turn very sour.

• While polls remain open, and if you are entitled to vote in the election, please refrain from disclosing your voting choices. Any comment declaring how you cast your vote will be removed by moderators owing to restrictions on polls and reporting, set out in article 66A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Once all polling stations have closed this restriction will be lifted. Thank you for your cooperation.