22 point Tory lead from YouGov
Posted on July 12th, 2008 by Anthony Wells
The monthly YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline voting intention figures, with changes from YouGov’s last poll, of CON 47%(+1), LAB 25%(-3), LDEM 18%(+3). The poll was conducted on the 10th and 11th July.
It looks like a drop for Labour, but the comparisons above are from YouGov’s last Telegraph poll, which itself showed an increase for Labour and drop for the Lib Dems. These figures are identical to the YouGov poll before that, suggesting that the bigger picture for voting intention polls is one of no change.
UPDATE: The Sunday Times got the figures wrong! The actual voting intentions were CON 47%(+1), LAB 25%(-3), LDEM 16%(+1).
Filed under: Voting Intention, YouGov
It would appear that the economy is ratcheting it’s way up.
One might have expected some very slight swing back to the government as expenses stories dribble through, and the government looks a little more statesmanlike over Zimbabwe etc.
I have to say, although I’m no supporter of Brown’s (mis)management of the economy, the media (such as the London Evening Standard) do seem to be rather wetting themselves with sloppy analysis - if we’re not going to have an official recession (2 negative quarters), they’re doing their best to get one.
So the finer detail in the poll would appear to indicate:
+ expectations of a recession,
+ house-prices to tank, and
+ people should take more control of themselves, with the government and politicians encouraging greater individual responsibility.
Assuming my synopsis is correct (and not clouded by subdued prejudices) who should be the happier: Brown or Cameron…?
Good news for Brown though. People do not associate him with Macavity the Cat anymore!
No, the deranged usurper who proved he was not up for the job - Macbeth - is the literary character that most of those polled chose. So who are the three wicked witches then…?
Joe James Broughton,
Sorry, we must have been writing or posts around the same time. The figures for Economic growth are:
No growth: 27%
Recession: 46%
As for your definition of recession, that is now best described as a technical recession. The US National Bureau of Economic Research has changed the official definition of a recession, which I posted on this site (as quoted in The Economist) a few months back. Here is the Wiki version:
“A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough”
The results in depth (available on the times website), are brilliant for the Tories re Cameron’s recent personal responsibility speech. A majority of voters, over 75%, agree that children have no boundries, politicians are too politically correct, politicians should stop being morally neutral, obese people and drink and drug addicts have only themselves to blame.
I am a heavy user of Wikipedia, but it can’t always be trusted - it can be altered by anyone.
I think it’s extremely unlikely the definition has been changed - it’s a technical term.
However, if certain sectors are in recession, or we have such low growth, below the underlying capacity, and unemployment rises, people will think there is one.
Goodness knows what the US National Bureau of Economic Research have been doing -
I expect they are saying that if the economy slows sharply after the peak of a cycle that’s a recession, if it is prolonged.
Well, with respect to them, it’s not just up to them to redefine it.
yougov did prity well in predicting the london election so im more impressed by a poll which says labour 22pt behined in the polls but i must say for populus to say labour are in recovery is a bit soon lets wait untill next week.
Yep - looks like the previous YouGov poll was a slight rogue in showing Labour support strengthening.
I think this is about right and how it will remain for the foreseeable future. Labour may recover very slightly over the summer as politics gets a lower profile. Tories Mid 40’s and Labour mid 20’s is how it will stay for the forseeable future unless there are any major gaffes or until the economy/prices begin to improve which may not happen this side of a GE because IMHO we are nowhere near the bottom yet.
WMA 46:27:18. However morale in Labour is catastrophically low and AFAIK they are also still out of money. If Brown survives the Party Conference I think we’ll start to see significant defections to the Conservatives and Lib Dems as Labour MPs conclude that this is the only way to save their seats.
It will narrow - I still have a lingering fear Tories will peak too early (as Labour did in 1990), but looking at it the other way round, I just don’t see how Brown can recover. Trust in his competence has gone - which didn’t happen to the Tories in 1990-92, until Black Wednesday after the election.
“So who are the three wicked witches then…? ”
They’d have to be people who deliberately fuelled his ambitions, while leading him to destruction.
I heard Cameron speak last week. He is acutely conscious of the disasterous results of Kinnock’s over-confidence, and utterly determined not to repeat this mistake. He is also *utterly* serious about his “broken society” theme.
Anyone who wants the country to enter a deep recession so that they can crow about it for political purposes is a bit of a disgrace really so I hope none of the newspapers is going to indulge in that activity.
This POLL just confirms what i said when the last Populus POll came out - there is no closing of the gap - quite the reverse.
The sad part is we are all being punished because a minority of voters gave Blair a second and third term in office - be it on their heads the current ills and the worse ones to come over the next 2 years .
“They’d have to be people who deliberately fuelled his ambitions, while leading him to destruction.”
I think their names were Hubris, Perfidy, & Balls.
‘The sad part is we are all being punished because a minority of voters gave Blair a second and third term in office - be it on their heads the current ills and the worse ones to come over the next 2 years .’
I have no interest in Blair but this phrasing is worth analysing; firstly Blair had a democratic mandate in the UK (not a minority in any normal sense of the term). (I note, of course, that Bush ‘lost’ his first election.) So, democracy elected Blair and now we we are all to be ‘blamed’ because of the results of democracy. The emotionality of the word ‘blamed’ is obvious; here your values are obvious– consequences would be better.
However your manipulation of the word ‘blamed’ is you don’t like democracy when it gives a result you don’t like. So democracy is fine when your side wins? Now, I like the old argument ‘I hate what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it’; as such Hamas won a democratic election but then the USA (followed by the UK) said ‘whoops democracy is fine but when it doesn’t give the people we want winning then democracy is wrong’. I fine that position indefensible. Either democracy is right in all cases or let’s all have dictatorships (a far more efficient form of government).
Blair won the election fair and square in the UK; as such the consequences are our own. If you wish to use terms such as the ‘minority’ of voters then may we also have your views on an unelected Upper House of Parliament and an Unelected Head of the country; following your argument you must be for the total abolition of the House of Lords and a republic. These are quite acceptable position based on democratic values.
Blair won the UK election by the democratic system we have in place; to imply otherwise is ridiculous. We can argue about alternative systems (I prefer Australia) but the implication in your posting is wrong. Blair won by the democratic principle in place at that election–the position you argue is that you don’t like the result of the democratic election therefore you reject the democracy which made it.
What do you believe in?
“Blair won the UK election by the democratic system we have in place; to imply otherwise is ridiculous.”
Jack, I agree with you but all Mike “the oracle” said was that Blair was elected by a minority of voters. I think this is true, because I think Labour got something like 22% of the electorate and 38% of the actual votes. (roughly).
As a matter of fact, I don’t think a government has been elected with more than 50% of the votes cast since the early 1950s, so by that token we can always blame a minority. Isn’t democracy great?
Anyone feel free to correct the above figures if I’m wildly out,
Labour’s share of the vote in 2005 was 35%. The last time a political party won over half the popular vote was the Conservatives in the 1935 general election.
While not enamoured of the result I accept that Blair won the 2005 election - and did so democratically.
However, the dangers for democracy in the 2005 election result were not that Blair won, but that he won a sizeable majority, yet:
- Labour only polled 36% - lowest share ever for a winning party (even in Feb 1974 Wilson’s minority government had a higher share)
- on a record low turnout - 59% - hence Labour were elected by less than 25% of the electorate
- Labour were only 3% ahead of the Conservatives, a ratio of 12:11, yet secured 364:197 seats - a ratio of 1.85:1.00
- Labour won far more seats in England despite Tories winning more votes.
I suspect that all of that will become interesting history in due course, but for some time when the polls were far closer than they are now, we had a real possibility of Labour retaining power without actually “winning” the election in terms of share of the vote overall.
Whichever party one supports, that cannot be regarded as being good for democracy - and yes, I would still say the same were it the other way around. Effective government needs legitimacy. When the link between votes cast and seats won is so clearly broken, then this undermines legitimacy. This was true for Scotland in the 1980s, which is why the Tories were so roundly defeated there in 1997 and struggle to recover even now.
What we really need is Proportional Voting in the House of Lords, where the Cross-Benchers get to cast votes proportionate to everyone who was on the Electoral Roll but didn’t vote for any party. Simple, effective, democratic, but sadly no party politician will support it.
Turnout rose a bit in 2005 - from 59% to 61.3%.
Still not nearly enough, but at least the trend was reversed and has been steadily confirmed in most sets of local elections from 2004 onwards - maybe 2003.
Labour did not do well in 2005 - but to be fair, I suspect many of their basic supporters (particularly those angry about the Iraq war and various other policies) felt they could afford a protest vote with the LDs or possibly the Nats or Greens, as few people seriously expected a Tory victory.
i think the closest to 50% of the votes in a general election in modern times and by far the most votes was john major.
what the other contributor may have been getting at is there is an in built bias in our system for the labour party(equal votes gives them far more seats).this must be newtralises,when the conservatives are in power.
the boundaries commission have never corrected this.
Philip, part of the reason for Labour’s ‘overrepresentation’ relates to levels of turnout at elections. The inner city seats dominated by Labour have lower turnouts so it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP. I don’t see how, given its remit, the Boundary Commission can correct this since it clearly cannot assume anything other than constant levels of turnout. To change rules so as to allow turnout to be considered would result in a bias towards places with higher turnouts something that would rightly be criticised.
Jack
Congratulations on your refutation of another typical offering from the Oracle. Personally I couldn’t be bothered to spend the time dealing with these comments but I’m glad someone does!
The key points to my mind are:
1. if we had someone other than Brown as PM would Labour be doing better?
2. does the fact that Brown is so disliked/distrusted mean that Labour gets all the blame for the hard economic times despite the fact that most of the problems are outside the UK’s control?
3. if the polls are roughly the same by the autumn will there be a serious push by Labour MPs to get rid of Brown on the grounds that if they don’t act an electoral meltdown is likely to be the consequence?
And to my mind the answers are:
1) It depends upon how you answer the question. If Gordon Brown had suddenly never existed, and Labour were being lead by some other people I am certain Labour would be doing better. The leader is a important factor in people’s voting intentions and Gordon Brown is very negatively viewed. One could also argue that some decisions that haven’t helped Labour, like allowing speculation for an early election to run out of control, would not have been done without Brown.
On the other hand, we can’t magic Brown out of existance, so if he wasn’t leader, it would have had to be because someone stood against him and won in 2007 - in which case this alternate leader could be faced with a large chunk of very annoyed Brownites in his party who may not be reconciled to a leader who isn’t Brown - or because he’d been ousted since then, which would probably have been a particularly bitter bout of internal warfare. In practical terms, the damage done to Labour by not having Brown could have equalled the damage they’ve suffered by having him.
2) I don’t think so. I think people tend to pin some blame on the government *anyway*, so it isn’t dependent upon Brown being disliked. Of course, a PM with more charm and charisma may have been able to shrug it off better.
3) Who knows? The internal politics of the PLP is probably not something those outside of it really understand.
On the subject of the Boundaries Commission there is one thing that could be done. For Parliamentary elections the Commission looks BACK at the population as it was. For Local Government elections it looks FORWARD. This approach therefore in a Parliamentary context would overcome the inbuilt Labour bias caused by populations tending to move from inner cities to the suburbs.
Clearly such a change would take time to be effective but if the Tories were to win in 2010 then a quick Bill could make such a change effective from any General Election after say 2016.
On the subject of the Boundaries Commission there is one thing that could be done. For Parliamentary elections the Commission looks BACK at the population as it was. For Local Government elections it looks FORWARD. This approach therefore in a Parliamentary context would overcome the inbuilt Labour bias caused by populations tending to move from inner cities to the suburbs.
Clearly such a change would take time to be effective but if the Tories were to win in 2010 then a quick Bill could make such a change effective from any General Election after say 2016.
Anthony:
“The internal politics of the PLP is probably not something those outside of it really understand.”
A rational person could speculate on what another rational person might do assuming similar knowledge in similar circumstances.
I’m sure you are a well informed rational person.
John none of us doubts Anthony’s rationality and intelligence but is the PLP made up from rational intelligent people?
Simon Cooke is correct - turnouts in safe Labour seats are lower, than in the Mole Valleys and Beaconsfields.
This is the main reason for the imbalance between Labour and Tory seats - but I still think the Tories get outsmarted in boundary reviews - although not as badly as in 1995-97.
I see the poll has been updated slightly - although I basically read it as a “no change” poll as before.
The ComRes poll gave me slight concern as a Tory that we are getting too many expenses stories or might find it difficult to keep up our momentum, but I don’t think we can kind of demand from the national party that every single poll has a 20 point lead, like the Tory home trolls who heaped such abuse less than a year ago.
I do not think it is the boundaries commission’s fault. It is the way the tories gave up on huge sections of the country they cannot expect to suddenley get them back when they want them. They are in 3rd even 4th place in many areas. No matter what rating they are at. There are seats where they are not seen as the major challenger.
Surely there is an elephant-in-the-room that everyone is ignoring when talk of a Labour leadership challenge? Is it worth appointing a leader who - on current trends - would be likely to lose their seat at the next election.
Using Mark Baxter’s new election-predictor, the following members are unlikely to return to the next chamber:
+ Geoff Hoon
]
]
:) ]
]
:) 
]
]
]
:) ]
+ John Hutton
+ Gisela Stuart [
+ Jack Straw
+ Ruth Kelly [
+ Nick Palmer [
+ Alun Michael
+ Geoffrey Robinson
+ Jon Cruddas
+ Alan Milburn
+ Shahid Malik
+ Caroline Flint
+ Tessa Jowell [
+ Stephen Pound
+ Alistair Darling
+ Ben Bradshaw
+ Tony McNulty [
+ Frank Dobson
+ Des Browne
+ Patrica Hewitt [
+ Charles Clarke
+ Angela Christine Smith
+ Jacqui Smith [
+ Jim Murphy [
+ John Denham
+ James Purnell
+ Sadiq Khan
+ Angela Eagle
I know that some of these members may not be standing in the next GE, and not all are leadership contenders (but represent key constituencies) but what is left: the Milibands and Balls. Would Labour survive with the like of those?
Surely there is an elephant-in-the-room that everyone is ignoring when talk of a Labour leadership challenge? Is it worth appointing a leader who - on current trends - would be likely to lose their seat at the next election.
Using Mike Baxter’s new election-predictor, the following members are unlikely to return to the next chamber:
+ Geoff Hoon
]
]
:) ]
]
:) 
]
]
]
:) ]
+ John Hutton
+ Gisela Stuart [
+ Jack Straw
+ Ruth Kelly [
+ Nick Palmer [
+ Alun Michael
+ Geoffrey Robinson
+ Jon Cruddas
+ Alan Milburn
+ Shahid Malik
+ Caroline Flint
+ Tessa Jowell [
+ Stephen Pound
+ Alistair Darling
+ Ben Bradshaw
+ Tony McNulty [
+ Frank Dobson
+ Des Browne
+ Patrica Hewitt [
+ Charles Clarke
+ Angela Christine Smith
+ Jacqui Smith [
+ Jim Murphy [
+ John Denham
+ James Purnell
+ Sadiq Khan
+ Angela Eagle
I know that some of these members may not be standing in the next GE, and not all are leadership contenders (but represent key constituencies) but what is left: the Milibands and Balls. Would Labour survive with the like of those?
Sorry for double post: It is Mike Baxter not Mark Baxter. Not that that makes the picture any better for Labour….
Sorry wrong again: Should always check my facts before posting! It is Martin Baxter.
Off to solitary for a week for me…!
Good point! Of course if one of those MP’s were to be the one who ousts GB, then they could get a “leader’s bounce” in their constituency vote and manage to hang on. The other elephant in the room is what happens if the worst predictions come true and Labour is reduced to 150 seats and all those possible contenders perish in the massacre. In that scenario then Miliband is the only credible leader, Balls will be too associated with GB and won’t get in (on a related point, Balls’ seat has been abolished has he got another one yet?) However Miliband will be leading a rump PLP in which nearly all of his natural Blairite allies will have gone and the remaining MP’s will be mostly Old Labour from the heartlands, the mood in the CLP’s will be very ugly to say the least and activists will be denouncing the whole Blair project and demanding a sharp move to the left. So in those circumstances, would Miliband want the job? Unless Cameron makes a complete pig’s ear of things, then we are looking, as Mike Smithson has wrote, at Tory rule well into the 2020’s. Would Miliband be prepared to lead an opposition party for that length of time?
Labour won’t be massacred at the General Election,
they should have at least 230 seats and 33%+
Why should they Joe? Never take the electorate for granted.
Labour will not be massacred at the next general election for a number of reasons:
1) During an election campaign opinion poll leads tend to reduce.
2) To win a majority the Conservative Party need quite a substatial swing.
3) Even in Labour’s worst year (1983) they still got over 200 seats and this was with the Alliance getting about 25% of the vote something that it seems unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will achieve at the next general election.
4) In my opinion the Conservatives will do very well in the South of England with large swings taking a number of seats (possibly getting close to a number of seemingly safe Labour seats etc) but the further North you go the swing will probably be less substantial and therefore the Labour Party will still retain a solid and substatial base.
5) Labour at the moment have a majority somewhere in the 60s. In the last half-century I believe that only Ted Heath in 1970 (when the economy was starting to fall apart) has in one election overturned such a deficit to get a working majority in one election.
6)The only circumstances pre-1950 where a party has managed to overturn a large majority in one election and claim a substantial majority in the 20th century was in 1945, which was under very rare circumstances, and in 1906 after the Unionist Party had torn itself apart which I can not see Labour doing.
Therefore the best case scenario for the Conservative Party is probably a majority of 40-60 unless the Labour Party commits electoral suicide.
The list of senior Labour MPs there is interesting but at the end of the day they won’t all perish, unfortunately. Think we would be lucky if a quarter of them went
Well certainly I was speculating on a worst case scenario based on the current poll ratings. The smart money says that Labour will stage a modest recovery over the next 18 months to minimise the electoral damge but there’s no guarantee of that, especially if the economy goes into recession or if the Tories come up with some policies that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Labour is in more trouble than the Tories were in the 1990’s because they were facing Labour and the LD’s attracting the traditional middle class swing voters. Labour today is facing a threat from the SNP for traditional Labour voters in Central Scotland, so they’re being squeezed from both ends of the political spectrum in a way which the Tories weren’t. The problem Labour has is if they move to the left to try and see off the SNP then they risk alienating the swing voters and vice versa, so the electoral risks are far greater. At the moment I still think Cameron will win the GE with a majority of around 60 but the chances of a Labour meltdown can’t be ruled out and aren’t we all going to have fun discussing it for the next 2 years?!
“3) Even in Labour’s worst year (1983) they still got over 200 seats and this was with the Alliance getting about 25% of the vote something that it seems unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will achieve at the next general election.”
Labour is close to a disaster. Their support base has diminished and they have no money to push out the vote, in areas where those who would have voted for them religiously now have little of that drive and many (the unemployed) are the least likely to vote out of many social group.
Labour once had serious links with the trades unions; now they are arguing bitterly and Labour can only rely upon the trades unions because the unions have “no alternative” to Labour at the moment.
The North is not a bastion of Labour; we saw Tories concentrated into the South because of the political climate, but now that has swung heavily in the Tories’ favour and that affects all parts of the country. The opinion swing might well be heavily Northern as Scotland hasn’t swung to the Tories much, and the South is already Tory-saturated. The new Tory votes will, I think, be in the North because with a 20% lead, there’s nowhere else for them to go.
“Labour won’t be massacred at the General Election,
they should have at least 230 seats and 33%+”
“Why should they Joe? Never take the electorate for granted.”
Simon Orr, Joe is actually a very magnaminous Conservative supporter. Labour do have an advantage when it comes to constituency boundaries but I’m wondering if Joe thinks the Conservatives will never win a landslide overall majority again?
I have to agree any Tory majority in present circumstances is likely to be substantially less than a straight interpretation of the Polls might imply. Yes it’s partly due to historical Tory attitudes (and the Labour hatred of them) and also to Poll (especially Opposition)leads reducing as an election approaches.
However my earlier point about the Boundaries Commision IS relevant because it actually retains a higher number of constituencies in Labour areas and the population of them shows them to be significantly smaller than those in the outer areas. Just do an analysis of the inner London constituencies (even after the latest revision) and I think you’ll see what I mean. Consequently using forward projections would both reduce the number of inner city (Labour) seats and the resultant increase in outer areas would clearly have a doubling effect on any possible non Labour majority.
The level of popular support gained by any government at a general election is not indicative of a failing system. So 36% with 60-70 seat majority for Labour in 05 may look bad on paper, but it is more reflective of underlying changes.
No system cannot be blamed for any of the parties not understanding how to work it to their benefit.
Tactical voting has changed the environment and we’ve now passed through a whole political cycle with it as a significant factor. Where once Labour was the greatest beneficiary it is beginning to recieve payback as the pendulum swings against them.
Labour has excessively targetted swing voters at expense of large tracts of the country (where local parties are completely moribund) and its ‘tribal’ areas (where they never expected to be challenged). Now that the swing is against Labour this could produce some interesting effects if (as in their Glasgow East heartland) they’re faced with a serious challenge, or (as in C&N-style swing seats) they’re faced with an effective organisation and (as in Henley opposition territory) their complete inability to make their ideas travel.
Faced with a General Election having forgotten how to fight on multiple fronts while being effectively bankrupt the result could break the party completely.
The series of polls - backed up by results - in 2008 have convinced me that the Conservatives CAN win - maybe fairly comfortably in seats, but I do not expect Labour to be massacred, as has been well explained by recent contributors.
I do think the starting position for Labour in 2005 is somewhat under-stated from where they actually were (non voters and Lab>LD protest voters who thought the Tories were little if any threat then). So there will be some churn in Labour’s vote.
(Although the very poor results for Labour recently do indicate a lack of enthusiasm even on the part of people one might have expected to come out and stop a Tory government).
It is going the Tories way, but it is not a foregone conclusion by any means.
The Conservative results in May 2007 - before the Brown bounce, were encouraging at 40-41 with 911 gains (more than given credit for), but there were still warnings of not really being able to break through against Labour in the north west (S Ribble apart) and W Yorks. 2008 seemed to show the break through.
I don’t rule out the Tories winning a landslide at some future election, because of course circumstances change over the years.
I grew up with the 1983 election imprinted on me as meaning Labour might never govern again. There may be a Tory landslide at some point - but I certainly don’t see one next time or anytime particularly soon.
Thomas has highlighted three separate issues, each of which can be expected to play against Labour at the next election. (Perhaps these are the three witches my local association chairman was referring to ?)
Tactical Voting:
In 1997 Labour and LDs both benefitted from this enormously at the expense of Conservatives. The effect was continued in 2001 - indeed there was a concerted campaign to build upon this, especially in Dorset, the one county to return a clean Tory slate in 1997.
By 2005, the effect had already begun to unwind, but we did see an element of anti-Labour voting propelling LDs into what were once Labour herartlands.
In 2010, it is clear that Tactical Voting, if it occurs, will be very much anti-Labour. Not only does this mean that we will see Labour lose many seats to Tories or LDs on large swings (as happened to Tories in 1997), but also several LDs who won Tory seats on the back of “anti-Tory” votes could see these revert.
For the LDs there are good prospects that they will make substantial gains from Labour, yet see their overall tally of MPs static (or fall) as they lose seats to Tories. There is a real danger for Nick Clegg that his party suffers massive “churn”, leaving him a largish group of MPs to lead, but with no experience.
Organsiation
Although it is important to add a caveat on extrapolating local council results to general elections, the reality is that every ward lost in local elections is another unit of party organisation demoralised at the least - and often dissipated completely. It was often remarked in the 1980s how many Tory MPs had Labour controlled local councils. But the position now for Labour is worse than that. There are large numbers of Labour MPs with NO Labour councillors in their constituencies. This is particularly true in the South, but even in the North, many Labour MPs find their local councillors in opposition.
Without councillors, who provide the backbone of local organisation, the foot soldiers may easily fall away. If there is no organisation on the ground, then it is harder to get the vote out. It resources are stretched too thinly, then losses can be widespread. Experience shows that turnout is usually higher in closely fought tight contests. But, if limited resources are focused on key seats, then formerly “solid” areas may crumble. Hence we could see losses/gains in some surprising places. (This too happened in 1997)
To rebuild an effective organisation requires planning, time, and money. Which takes us to the third witch.
Party Finances
For too long Labour has relied on large donations from a limited number of wealthy backers, with a core level of support from the Unions. As the lareg donors melt in the sun, Labour has no obvious alternative.
Not being privy to Labour finances, I don’t know if they are bankrupt, or just heavily in debt. However, it does seem that, just as they have built up an economy stoked on borrowed money, so too have they run their party. Now the crunch has come and the cupboard is bare.
What does appear very likely is that Labour simply will not have the money to buy themselves the reasources and organisation they will need to mount an effective campaign.
Moreover, unlike the last three elections where they only had to fend off a relatively weak Tory attack plus some isolated LD challenges, Labour will go into the next election fighting on all fronts.
Opinion polls may indicate how people are inclined to vote, but they do not motivate electors to the polling station on the day. That needs local organisation.
While the Boundary Commission changes may but slowly address the drift of voters from (labour?) city centres to (tory ?) suburbs, the above factros will have far more influence on the outcome of the next election.
I think Joe James Broughton was being kind in suggesting that Labour will retain 230 seats and 33% of the vore. After all, 33% is only a fall of 3% on 2005. I think Labour will be mightily relieved if they make it to 30%. As to the number of seats held, unless there is a major turn-around in the polls over the next few months, it is anyone’s guess what the figure will be.
Ooops,
Rather a lot of typos in that last post. I must be tired.
Apologies to the purists, but I shan’t correct.
Paul H-J raises an interesting point (of many) about party finances - I think some [certainly not all] wealthier backers do kind of gravitate to where the power is or looks like it’s going to be.
I read a story from a former Tory Cabinet Minister that when John Major won the Conservative leadership contest in November 1990, a Company Chairman just entered the room [somehow] completely uninvited and came up to meet him, and that they were convinced that if Labour had won in 1992 he would be after them.
Joe,
Money is power - or so a lot of people think. It follows that people with money like to go where power is (or appears to be going).
Actually, many self-made people, including Company Chairman, are interested in being seen to associate with winners, and so will lend their support (& money) to those whom they expect will win.
The increasing difficulty Labour now faces in raising money - in contrast to the ease that Cameron finds compared to his predecessors - is a sure indicator that the tide has turned against Labour.
Did anyone else see or hear of David Cameron talking about possible short term tax hikes for an incoming Conservative government? I’d think he’d better keep quiet about that otherwise that lead might well vanish very fast. It’s probably what’s needed as well as spending cuts, but I doubt the electorate want to hear it being promised.
I’m back in the UK so can calculate the WMA properly, it’s 45:26:17. So as Anthony says, basically no change since mid-June. But as it sinks in just what a mess Gordon Brown has made of the economy I think there will be a further swing, and by Oct my guess is that we’ll see something like 48:23:20.
A Labour wipeout isn’t certain but it is certainly on the cards. There has never been a PM this incompetent or unpopular.
Keith -
The good times have gone probably for quite a while. IMHO What’s needed is big cuts in public spending to try to balance the books. However neither public spending cuts or tax rises will be popular.
I think DC just needs to be honest and tell it like it is nearer the GE. IMHO the electorate will probably give him the benfit of the doubt given what’s happening at the moment with the economy,prices etc.
It would also be refreshing to hear a politician be honest and tell us that we’re in a hole and that some short term pain is needed to get out of it.
I noticed the Hefferlump having another go at Cameron in the Telegraph today over his stance on spending pledges and tax cuts.
The reality is that the kitty is empty - probably worse than 1979 since at least after 1977 Denis Healey took the necessary first steps to cut spending.
There are two quite different reasons why Cameron & Osborne still want to retain aggregate spending at planned levels, and neither has anything to do with the original reason for this policy. Initially, Cameron wanted to reassure voters that the Tories would not slash public spending - almost the opposite of Labour in 1997 who wanted to reassure the public that they would not increase spending irresponsibly (do they think we haven’t noticed that Gordon opened the floodgates as soon as the promised prudent period expired ?) However - as with so many political promises, the initial plan has been overtaken by events, but the same policy is required for different reasons.
Firstly, the government is like a supertanker, not a London taxi. You can’t change direction on a sixpence. Even if on day 1 Tories decided to do away with whole chunks of public spending programmes, it would take at least two years to get all the necessary measures through the house and actually free up the funds.
Secondly, while there may be savings to be made in some areas, even early on, there are two major cost issues and one major revenue issue which make tax cuts unaffordable at the outset.
These are:-
a: (recession induced) additional non-discretionary expenditure - viz social security & other benefits
b: significantly higher debt service payments - yes, all that prudent investment fuelled by borrowing does need to be paid for, and as interest rates edge up again (*), the cost of servicing, never mind repaying, the debt will spiral upwards.
c: (recession induced) reductions in tax receipts - not just Corporation Tax, but also PAYE (due to reduced employment rolls) and especially VAT (due to falling retail sales)
(*) the interest cost for the national debt is governed by the price at which the markets will buy treasury bonds, and not by BoE base rate. In the absence of any liquidity in the markets, Libor is a better guide - and that is still well above base rate.
Before anyone starts attacking me for using the “r” word, please look at the reality of what is happening on the economic front. Growth in Q1 was 0.3%. Even if we assume that it was evenly spread, that works out at 0.1% per month, perilously close to 0%. In all probability, growth was slightly higher in January, practically nothing in February, and turned negative in March. There is now a very strong chance that Q2 will show a contraction - possibly no more than 0.3% - but enough to leave H1 at +/- 0%. It may be worse. Several leading indicators are now truly in negative territory, so the prospects for Q3 showing positive growth are grim. If the Q2 figure comes out at -0.1%, or lower, then we will have a technical recession by the time of the Queen’s speech and PBR.
I am not at all happy that my country is in such dire straits, but you cannot keep inflating a bubble forever. So many fundamentals in the economy are out of line that the readjustment is going to be painful for us all.
I’ve just seen the BBC film of Cameron and Osborne’s interview, and the headline they’ve given it seems rather over-done. All that happened was that they were asked about it and they (rightly) wouldn’t rule it out. I very much want tax cuts, and the sooner we get them the more money available to private companies and private people to create their own wealth - that will - in time - bring in more tax.
But - for all that - it is just that - in time.
No responsible opposition, hoping to be a government, can make such promises when the public finances are deteriorating fast, much as we may dislike it. As Paul H-J says, it is a ship and it takes time to cut public spending, however bold you are at the start. Although tax cuts bring more revenue in over time, and I’ve argued for a firmer statement of intentions, one has to accept that to increase the debts in the short term before savings have materialised isn’t something that a major party is likely to promise (The Lib Dems can promise what they like).
On Pauls point about GDP growth or otherwise, the 0.3% in quarter 1 was a sharp slowdown, but still annualised at over 1%. We will, of course, need to see what happens.
(In 1990 (different of course), it was surprisingly late in arriving given the high interest rate implemented from late 1988, and the swing in output came in August - at first very sharply, and then a levelling out - but it didn’t turn for quite a long time.)
The point about a potential Labour meltdown is that it opens up a wide range of possibilities, throwing the proverbial spanner of unpredictability into the works.
The current situation is highly fluid and it is well within the realms of possibility that Labour could still win the popular vote, or indeed, come third overall.
The 1983 GE provides the starkest contrast between parties achieving around a quarter of the popular vote. Labour gained 27.6% (8.45m votes) and 209 seats, while the Alliance gained 25.4% (7.78m votes) and 23 seats. In the post-Falklands euphoria Thatcher was enabled to streak away with 397 seats on only 42.4% of the nationwide poll (13m votes), giving a majority of 144.
While the disproportionate outcome regarding seats is unlikely to be repeated the shares are remarkably close on current trends.
Assuming Labour will lose about 1.5m votes cast compared to 2005 to fall to current poll levels, one has to ask whether Brown can gamble more on alienating tribal or floating ‘aspirational’ voters considering the large swathes of country where Labour will be squeezed further into third place (it is unbelievable that an underfunded defensive campaign will pay any attention to disorganised ‘unwinnable’ seats).
The other certainty is that the third party will use the publicity of the campaign to increase its share by several points, though by the looks of his economic focus Clegg is playing a neat game likely to attract as many on the right of the spectrum as could be naturally expected to gained from Labour. Though it must be borne in mind the LDs are consequently less likely to gain from this direction if Brown prefers New Labour centrism against old Labour leftism, in which case space for an ‘alternative left’ (Greens?) or alternative to the left (BNP?) opens up.
Therefore in all bar a tory landslide it seems odd that continued third party progression has been so easily and roundly discounted from the electoral calculations.
However my prediction is that the landscape will change significantly in favour of more direct two-way fights, and with larger numbers of smaller majorities.
Localised factors will undoubtedly determine a greater number of outcomes than ever previously and the unpredictability quotient will also rise accordingly.
Minority and fringe parties should definitely be watched more closely, in my view, to ascertain whether they have the capability to gain seats rather than votes, because this will play a large role in uncovering the battlegrounds where, and battlelines over which the election will be fought.
Ultimately the story is a question of where parts of Labour vote will go - it is quite probable that it will split all ways and severe splintering will occur sending it into terminal decline, while managing to retain a large rump of more than 200 seats - this time.
Labour is in trouble.
They must fight with that fact that they have an awful leader and no-one to replace him, let alone anyone who will hold their seat in 2010 with enough of a majority to be secure from head-hunting.
The political majority is in favour of cutting taxes, which is practically a death-knell for a Labour administration at any time.
Whilst the Tories are not gaining much in Scotland, and a little more in Wales, this leaves the North as a place where, by elimination, people must be swinging heavily towards the Tories. Labour will have trouble fighting this whilst fighting the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru, both of whom fight for Labour’s current ground (and perhaps to the left) with the bonus of nationalist/regionalist tendencies. Labour is thus attacked from the unionist and nat/regionalist sides.
Labour may (distantly) have trouble from the left, if the hard-liners get their act together; the unions may be pushed to breaking and, conceivably, more will join the LibDems, Nats and Plaid. But this is a distant position, where the only effects have been Galloway and a few other independents.
I don’t believe that Labour can even fight a good election; they simply haven’t the cash. The Tories, due to being the pro-business, pro-capitalist party since the Liberals fell apart 100 years ago, can rely on big businesses who, despite some conspiracists, can’t stage the business equivalent of the 1984/5 strike.
I think the most important factor at the next election will be the state of the economy.
Labour are gambling that the economy will have recovered by Spring 2010. And they can then present Brown as the trustworthy captain who steered the country through the storms of global economic difficulty.
The real question is whether the economy will recover sufficiently to make this claim believable to enough people to make a significant difference at the election.
However, I think that even a good economic recovery will not be enough for Labour to win an overall majority. For both Brown and his cabinet are viewed as being quite a lot worse than Blair and his cabinet. And conversly Cameron and his cabinet are seen to be considerably better than Howard and his cabinet. Also it is highly likely that the Lib Dems will do better than current opinion polls are suggesting.
Last time, Labour were very lucky to win by scraping a majority in so many seats. I really can’t see that being repeated. But the more the economy recovers the closer it MIGHT be.
Philip JW - Labour’s “reputation” for good housekeeping on the economy is gone for good.
Now they’re rewriting they’re own fiscal rules in order to stay within the limits. Unbelievable !
I actually feel that we’re in a recession now although the thing about recessions is that you don’t know they’ve happened until some time later because the statistics that confirm a technical recession are retrospective.
It’s even more amazing that the tories have been manouevered into the position where they are now the party of tax rises!
The polls are in for a shock.
“The polls are in for a shock.”
Why?