Posted by Dr Andrew Connell
There are things about this election that remind me quite strongly of 1992: a tired government, a Prime Minister who took office in mid-term seeking to win his own popular mandate, and a feeling that people are wanting a change - but with an Opposition still trying to establish their credibility as a government-in-waiting, and none of the sense of sea-change (as Jim Callaghan put it) that was so strongly present in 1979 and 1997. If this election were to follow the 1992 pattern, we’d see Labour re-elected with a small but (barring any great internal divisions on the lines of the Conservative split on Europe in the 1990s) workable majority.
But of course this is not 1992. The most obvious difference is, of course, the position of the Lib Dems. The jump in their support in the polls since last week’s TV debate has attracted most of the attention, but in terms of their ability to get MPs elected, a lot has changed over the past 20 years. 18 years ago the Lib Dems won 20 seats; in 2005 they won 62. The big leap, of course, came in 1997, assisted by tactical voting and a highly unpopular government, but the Lib Dems have a remarkable ability to keep hold of what they’ve won. The ‘Clegg effect’ has been the great surprise of the campaign so far; but if, after May 6, the Lib Dems are in a position to make or break a government, it’ll be the result of two decades of local campaigning as much as of 90 minutes on television last Thursday.
