Talking up the Labour landslide

The election is not over – it has barely begun, as fewer than one in ten people who will eventually vote have already sent in their ballot – but Labour insiders are already worrying about the expectations management game in the days and weeks following election day.

If, as expected, Keir Starmer becomes the UK’s next prime minister on 5^th July, that would represent an astonishing turnaround of Labour’s political fortunes over five years that almost no-one thought was possible.

Labour’s 2019 election result was its worst since 1935, it was facing not just a Conservative majority of 80, but also the simple fact Labour had 163 fewer seats than the Tories. That is such a significant deficit to overturn that even those who said they were optimistic about Labour’s prospects thought it would take up to a decade for Labour to re-enter Number 10.

Against that backdrop, any victory should look like a triumph. But between the polling and the coverage, Labour expectations are not so much sky-high as interstellar. The best MRPs for the Conservatives suggest they might “only” face a 1997-style wipeout, while some suggest Labour majorities of 200+.

Conservative media is issuing dark warnings of an impending Labour “supermajority” – a concept that exists in some countries (where having 2/3rds of seats allows for changing the constitution) but not in the UK. Some are even forecasting a total Conservative wipeout. Some serving cabinet ministers have fuelled that fire.

Sources close to Starmer’s inner team are watching that coverage warily. Their suspicion is that it is less aimed at avoiding a heavy Conservative defeat, which is probably inevitable, but rather at undermining Labour’s mandate from its very first days in office.

If a “supermajority” is sufficiently hyped, they reason, then a Labour majority of 40, 60 or even 80 could be framed as a disappointment – or even, perversely, as a lack of mandate. It is not hard to see the kind of coverage they are imagining: “Hopeless Tories. Resurgent Reform. And THIS is the best Keir could do?”

If right-wing commentators imagine that Reform voters – had Farage not stood, or Reform had not competed in Tory-held seats – would have opted for the Conservatives (though evidence shows many wouldn’t), they can combine the Tory and Reform vote share to suggest Labour did not “break through”.

Given that smaller parties of all stripes are doing better in 2024 than 2019, which was very much a two-party election dominated by the single issue of Brexit, Labour’s vote share may not improve much versus 2019 – which could unite Corbyn supporters and Telegraph columnists alike in saying Starmer’s supposed landslide isn’t “real”.

These narratives would not change the underlying reality of a Starmer majority, and in theory at least should not force Labour to water down its plans on workers’ rights, reform of parliament, and planning reforms. But if a narrative that Labour’s majority wasn’t “real” began to take root, it could only serve to embolden those who wanted to make it harder for Starmer to govern.

People inside the Conservative campaign are keen to note that from their perspective, at least, there is no 4D chess being played when Grant Shapps or others warn of a Labour “supermajority”.

Instead, they have found that claims of a Tory wipeout have demoralised activists, meaning fewer people are turning up to knock on doors or post leaflets. They have also cut through to some voters on the doorstep, who now ask what the point of voting Conservative is when the party is apparently so doomed.It might not be a deliberate Conservative tactic, but that doesn’t mean Labour’s insiders are wrong to worry about how the media will use it – a win is a win, even if the Daily Mail tries to say otherwise.