Worst election defeat

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In each of these elections the incumbent government lost more than half its seats, if not more.
Which is most severe though?  Remember that the % of seats lost is not the only barometer of this.
Each defeated party would return to government.
Poll runs for 14 days.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Write in: Canada 1993

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I myself am casting a vote for the Canadien federal election of 1935.  The Tories would not return to government until 22 years afterwards.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Write in: Canada 1993

I knew that would win in a landslide (forgive the pun) if it was included.  Hence its exclusion.  But your write-in vote is understandable.

[Sumner 1868]

Write in: Canada 1993

I knew that would win in a landslide (forgive the pun) if it was included.  Hence its exclusion.

Well, annihilating a political party isn't a frequent occurrence. Not even up north.

In light of this absence, there's no question that Canada 1984 permanently damaged the Liberal Party, as seen by their awful 2011 performance. Even now, after nine years of Harper, they tie solely due to the star power of a leader who's qualification is nepotism.

[DC Al Fine]

Canada 1993 notwithstanding, I think Canada 1935 is the worst defeat. As Tim Turner noted, the Tories were out of power for 22 years and they could only win power after Liberal dynasties long overstayed their welcome. Really, the Tories have only gotten back to their pre-depression status in the past several years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are some other British General Elections you could list; 1931 (in which Labour fell from 287 to 52 seats) and 1945 (in which the National Government fell from 429 to 210 seats) both merit inclusion, even if both defeated parties recovered quickly. And then there is the matter of 1924; not as a defeat for the incumbent government (which was an absurdly weak minority government anyway), but for the third placed Liberals who fell from 158 seats to 40 and never recovered.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are some other British General Elections you could list; 1931 (in which Labour fell from 287 to 52 seats) and 1945 (in which the National Government fell from 429 to 210 seats) both merit inclusion, even if both defeated parties recovered quickly. And then there is the matter of 1924; not as a defeat for the incumbent government (which was an absurdly weak minority government anyway), but for the third placed Liberals who fell from 158 seats to 40 and never recovered.

I forgot about both, I'd admit.  But I do like my current selection.  This poll is quite straightforward.

[Sumner 1868]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

[You kip if you want to...]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

You could argue that they're still struggling today with the legacy of 1992-1997 and their defeat.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Was it?  Surprisingly not as bad as you might think.  They returned to office in 13 years.  But since then, Labour has won two majorities while the Conservatives have won none, zilch, nada.  That might change in few months.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

...yes.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm surprised no one has voted for or even mentioned the 1931 Australian election yet.

[Sumner 1868]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

...yes.

Let me rephrase. Was the sting of losing badly but missing the Iraq war as bad as the sting that later came to Labour?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Um, seeing as the '97 blowout led to the Tories go on a decade long panic in which people began to legitimately question whether they could ever recover (and in many areas still haven't recovered), while Labour (aside from Scotland) have the potential to be in office by this time next year ... Yes.

[You kip if you want to...]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

...yes.

Let me rephrase. Was the sting of losing badly but missing the Iraq war as bad as the sting that later came to Labour?

Much much worse.

Considering what happened to Labour, in Labour and around Labour 2007-2010, their result at the last election should be considered stunning.

That Ed Miliband is so far behind Cameron and yet is still very much in the running to be PM in 2 months time should be considered stunning as well. It shows how poorly the Tory brand is still received. They continue to struggle in a way Labour just doesn't.

Should Labour win in May (on their own or with a partner), I think the chattering classes will start throwing round the eye-roll worthy "default party of government" label that was once owned by the Tories.

The 1997/2010 comparison fall further apart when you consider that in 1997, Labour broke into seats in which they'd never even come close before. There's a whole slew of Labour safe seats which, as recently as 1992/1997, were marginal (Wallasey, Ellesmere Port, Sefton, Leeds NE, Oldham) and a whole slew of LD seats which were once Tory but now are no-hopers for them (Hallam, SW London, the Lake District).

The Tories in 2010 didn't get far beyond seats they lost in 1992 and 1997, and even then, there were so many seats they missed that they had no business losing (Wirral South, Edgbaston). And, it almost goes without saying, they've failed to make any progress in Scotland. Basically, 1997 was a huge realignment, 2010 definitely wasn't, but 2015 could be (UKIP, LD collapse, Scotland).

[Sumner 1868]

Was UK 1997, in retrospect, really that bad for the Conservatives?

...yes.

Let me rephrase. Was the sting of losing badly but missing the Iraq war as bad as the sting that later came to Labour?

Much much worse.

Considering what happened to Labour, in Labour and around Labour 2007-2010, their result at the last election should be considered stunning.

That Ed Miliband is so far behind Cameron and yet is still very much in the running to be PM in 2 months time should be considered stunning as well. It shows how poorly the Tory brand is still received. They continue to struggle in a way Labour just doesn't.

Should Labour win in May (on their own or with a partner), I think the chattering classes will start throwing round the eye-roll worthy "default party of government" label that was once owned by the Tories.

The 1997/2010 comparison fall further apart when you consider that in 1997, Labour broke into seats in which they'd never even come close before. There's a whole slew of Labour safe seats which, as recently as 1992/1997, were marginal (Wallasey, Ellesmere Port, Sefton, Leeds NE, Oldham) and a whole slew of LD seats which were once Tory but now are no-hopers for them (Hallam, SW London, the Lake District).

The Tories in 2010 didn't get far beyond seats they lost in 1992 and 1997, and even then, there were so many seats they missed that they had no business losing (Wirral South, Edgbaston). And, it almost goes without saying, they've failed to make any progress in Scotland. Basically, 1997 was a huge realignment, 2010 definitely wasn't, but 2015 could be (UKIP, LD collapse, Scotland).

I see your point. And I agree that 2015 will probably be a realignment given the severe disillusion so many have.

[emcee0]

Definitely Canada in '93

[Blair]

1997, as said before was big because Labour won in seats that frankly they will never win again. If you want to look at 100% solid tory seats-check how they did in 1997. The tories knew they were going to lose, but no-one expected TB to get what 418 out of 650 seats.

It was the conservatives 1979. Labour had to wait 20 years to win a majority after that, and the tories are waiting 23 years to get there's