The final lap (part 5) – Can Labour recover?
In the first four parts (1,2,3,4) of this article I looked back at the last four years and asked how we got where we are. This final part is looking forward across theremaining months before the general election and asking the obvious question of whether anything is likely to divert proceedings from the Conservative victory that is the almost universal assumption amongst commentators (with the seemingly lone exception of James McIntyre. Perhaps there are others, but it’s certainly a lonely furrow he’s plowing!)
I reject the sort of argument that governments always recover towards an election. Firstly, public opinion moves for a reason, the government have to do something to make themselves more attractive (or the opposition something to drive support away). More importantly, it’s simply not supported by the facts. I looked at it in great detail here, but in short, while it’s always possible in hindsight to pick the worst point for a government and say they went on to recover from it, it doesn’t follow that they will automatically recover from their position now; in the last two Parliaments the government didn’t really recover at all compared to their polling lead the year before the election. For Labour to recover, they need to address their problems.
As you’ll have picked up from the article so far, my view is that these are:
(1) They no longer have the luxury of facing an unappetising opposition
(2) They have failed to put forward a coherent narrative or purpose
(3) They have been in power for 12 years, carry the accumulated blame of all that’s gone wrong and the public want a change
(4) They have an unpopular and unlikeable leader who doesn’t connect with the public
The first of these is largely out of Labour’s control. They have not so far managed to find a formula of negative campaigning that works against David Cameron. The main routes that seem to have been explored are, firstly, attacking Cameron as being rich and out of touch, which seems to have backfired in Crewe and Nantwich and just made Labour look negative and old fashioned, and a “two faces” attack that behind Cameron the Conservatives haven’t changed and are still nasty and right wing. The converse of this (“New Labour, new Danger”) failed for the Conservatives in 1997, and so far it seems to have backfired when tried against Cameron (on things like Dan Hannan’s NHS views) by just giving David Cameron the opportunity to differentiate himself even further from the old Tory brand.
There is always the chance of the Conservatives imploding themselves. They had a conspicious row over grammar schools and David Cameron’s reaction to the result of the second Irish referendum on Lisdon may yet be another point where there is no easy way to make all in his party happy (though a lot of people seem to be grossly overestimating its possible impact – the issue of Europe has extremely low salience with the public, with only 2% or so naming it as an important issue. It is only a threat to Cameron because it is an important issue to many in the Conservative party and it could provoke internal division which would damage their popularity.) To date, however, the party has been relatively united and it is normally when a party is doing badly in the polls that internal dissent breaks out. Cameron has also proved himself to be quite cautious especially when he is ahead in the polls. So, while it is possible, I wouldn’t expect the Conservatives to throw it all away by proposing something hideously unpopular.
Looking at the second problem, in theory there is nothing stopping Labour putting forward a wonderful, compelling new narrative tomorrow. It’s the sort of thing that people like Jon Cruddas have correctly identified as Labour’s key failing and who occassonly call for from the sidelines. Unfortunately, it is much easier to identify as a problem than it is to solve. Gordon Brown’s lack of personal charisma is an obstacle, so is the lack of goodwill towards the government. People would have been a lot more willing to listen to Gordon Brown laying out his new government’s great purpose when he first became Prime Minister, my impression is that now a sizeable proportion of the public has just stopped listening. On top of that, it’s a very difficult thing to do in the first place, especially in an era of unideological, catch-all parties – if there was some compelling narrative in the Labour cupboard, it would probably been deployed by now (for what it’s worth, the Conservatives don’t seem to have really cracked what their narrative is for the next election either – though they have the luxury of being the opposition and not really needing one, they just need the government to lose.)
Thirdly, there is the “cost of government” and the public’s desire for change. Again, Gordon Brown had a chance when he first became Prime Minister, he was never the ideal agent of change having been there for so long, but there could have been some obvious repudiation of what had gone before, some great symbolic reversal. He can obviously not present himself as a new candidate of change now, and given his waning authority, a massive change in policy or senior cabinet roles also seems unlikely.
Fourth is Gordon Brown himself.
When I write these long round ups I do my best not to sit on the fence. It’s easy to slam caveats on everything, never put your neck out and hence never be wrong. At the end of 2007 I said I didn’t think Labour could regain a lead in the polls under Gordon Brown. I still don’t. There are a couple of cards still in the deck: when the recession formally ends and the headlines announce “Recession Ends” that could yet give them a boost. Cameron’s response to the Lisbon referendum in Ireland also has potential to give him some internal party difficulties. The biggest possible game changer though is if Labour have one last go at getting rid of Gordon Brown before the election (or if Gordon Brown himself decides to stand down).
I’m not going to pontificate about the chances of it happening – I don’t pretend to understand the inner workings of the Parliamentary Labour party. My view is however that it is Labour’s only real chance of avoiding defeat. A new leader would almost certainly connect better with the public, they could grab the opportunities that Brown missed during summer 2007 and use whatever brief honeymoon they had to put forward a clear offering, and clearly differentiate themselves from the Blair/Brown government, portraying themselves to be the change the public desire.
Could it be enough for them to win? I really don’t know, it depends on too many imponderables, it could collapse into factional warfare and make things even worse, and it may be too late for anything to save them. That said, I think it is Labour’s last, best chance.
is that the lot or are we in for another page of thinking and wondering what could happen, no doubt that labour are finished and should be in a much worse stat than they are in now all in all as many will know from me posts, i do not and would never vote for labour but am always open minded about all other parties, but it is clear now that labour is doomed
‘I reject the sort of argument that governments always recover towards an election. Firstly, public opinion moves for a reason, ‘
Anthony I appreciate the philosophy underpinning this idea of yours – and I wish it was true – but I would argue that it depends on the definition of ‘reason’.
Is, for example, an emotional campaign from our tabloid press – or channel 5 – then picked up by UKIP / BNP – a reason? In one way yes it is, but in another way I view it as emotional rubbish…
In other words what I view as reason – logic – is great. I’d love people to be swayed by reason. But I suspect ‘reason’ is that we can understand what happens when emotionality impacts on the electorate; and that I hate. Too much of what we do is led by the tabloid press / Murdoch.
Do you think the people will tolerate being ‘governed’ by another unelected (and to most) obscure figure with unidentifiable track record as PM? I don’t think so. Further slide in opinion polls for sure.
Jack – I certainly wasn’t intending it to be understood like that – I don’t think people change their voting intention as a result of reasoned logic! It’s much more emotional as you say. Perhaps I should have said public opinion doesn’t change without a cause, though that could be similarly misconstrued.
Basicly I meant only that a change in opinion only happens as a result of something changing- an event, a change of leader, a policy shift, a scandal, an economic change – or indeed, an emotional campaign from the tabloid press! It doesn’t just change by magic.
The Labour Party have had a problem with the trade unions since 1974, specifically the violence associated with people like Arthur Scargill and the winter of discontent in 1979.A lot of people find white male working class union members repellent,.Tony Blair was able to marginalise these people but stories such as that about Dave Ward of the CWU,’ 6ft6 inches tall , Chelsea supporter , and convicted of assault’ according to the Daily Mail are not helping Gordon Brown.
good article though I find the figure of only 2% of people rated Europe an important issue very hard to believe.
also the government are still going out of their way to be unpopular. even today there was the story about a plan to install a slop bucket in every home. Then there was the vetting thing and the duty rise on petrol. These things don’t register with the punditocracy, but they do with voters.Labour are almost deliberately trying to lose it.
I like the analysis Anthony, and agree that Labour’s only real hope is to ditch Brown. I also agree that the effect is not certain, and might well backfire as others have said.
It is however, the only option that just might work for them. I suppose it all depends on how desperate they are to cling on to power. The mood is very similar to that in 1997. This lot have had their turn, and it’s time for a change, as you said. That sort of mood is very hard to stop.
David P – I follow these things fairly closely, but I missed the bit about the slop bucket (must go and Google immediately). But if I missed it, I’m sure many less interested voters did too. I agree about the other two things though.
Superb set of articles.
In the 4th post you postulated that the expenses scandal had hit LibDems less than the two main parties. Whilst it undoubtedly did in absolute terms, did it so in relative terms? I don’t know, but you have your fingers on all the polling info!!
My point is: if, say, 1 in 6 of a party’s voters were turned off that party because of the expenses scandal it would have seen the Tories share reduce from, say, ~42% to ~35%, yet the LibDems share reduce from, say ~18% to ~15%. Relative impact on LibDems just the same as on Tories, absolute impact less than half.
Are you able to prove one way or another?
Just curious! Many thanks.
It would be a most remarkable achievement for a new leader to save Labour from an electoral defeat.
But as we saw in June there does not seem to be a sufficient collective drive by Labour MPs to get rid of GB as leader. Indeed, it has been mentioned that there seems to an unusually large number of Labour MPs who intend to retire at the next election.
The slight improvement in the economy and in their present polls, at least from Yougov and Populus, is a considerable hinderance to rallying opposition against GB.
It could be that by the end of November the polls will clearly demonstrate that Labour are in the low twenties. But by then it will be too late. If there was to going to be a leadership challenge we would have heard about it by now. Time is realistically speaking up.
Like the titanic it is too late to steer away from disaster. The captain will go down with the ship.
Whilst I agree with the conclusion, I’m not at all sure there is a commonalty between Labour and GB. His unwillingness, even today, to recognise that to quote Jim Callaghan that “the party’s over” and effectively to say we’re not going to do anything beyond some rhetoric before the GE is, in my view, likely to worsen the position for Labour.
Accordingly any new leader and despite being PM is most unlikely to be able to adopt a different course as according to media reports the “new” stance was agreed by the Cabinet earlier this week.
In short GB has, by securing cabinet approval for his latest stance, prevented any new leader from being able to portray a new approach. Thus instead of a Labour defeat it may well be a Labour catastrophe.
I think that a new leader at this stage is too little too late to save Labour.
They would have to be put into place late enough to avoid the inevitable deafening calls for an immediate election given that this would be the second unelected leader. This would give them little time to turn things around, especially if Labour are in the low 20s by then.
I think that barring any Tory disasters the best they can hope for is denting Cameron’s majority into single figures.
My prediction based on what I am seeing in the polls, what has happened in the past and “gut feel” is for a Tory majority of 53 seats. I guess that this could possibly go as high as 80-90 seats given a fair wind.
Should Labour put a new leader into place, that leader connect with the people and everything else line up perfectly for them It could go as low as a 10-15 seat majority.
Anything lower than that would be a spectacular recovery for Labour and I think (and hope) that this won’t happen.
What does everyone else think?
It looks to me as if any life-force within the Labour party which might have been able to ditch Brown was extinguished a few months ago. As you say, it probably wouldn’t make much difference at this late stage anyway.
I agree that a Tory majority of about 50-60 seats seems most likely at the moment.
Regarding the economy hope has been raised that we will be officially out of the recession in a matter of months.
If we are not clearly out of the recession by May next year then I think this will strengthen ill-will towards the government, particularly if other major countries have achieved this.
If we are out of the recession by the probable time of the GE then people will EXPECT the focus to go from investment towards reducing public debt by cutting public services. Thus this arguement which GB still sought to employ today that Labour are the party of investment and Cons the party of cuts becomes meaningless.
I think that we will find that during the election campaign Labour’s accusation that the Tories would make savage cuts in spending will be countered by their accusation that Labour are preparing terrible tax bombs. As polls have suggested people are more afraid of tax bombs than savage cuts. (The rise in VAT will make the Tories accusation all the more believable).
Anyway you look at it the Tories seem to have the stronger hand.
The only other way around the pitfalls of a new leader maybe if Labour went down the american presidential route when the parties select a presidential candidate when a sitting president has reached their maximum two terms in office.
Gordon Brown could announce now that he will see through this parliament but will not be seeking re-election and could use his health or age or wanting to do other things.
Labour would then be able to select a new party leader not prime minister. The party leader could start to raise their profile and connect with voters and explain their plans if they were to form the next government.
When Gordon Brown calls the election he would then resign and the new leader would then fight it out with David Cameron, Brown would remain PM until either Cameron Or the labour leader is elected Prime minister.
Therfore none of the questions of an immediate general election or another “unelected leader” becomes an issue.
The suggestion that Labour may be deliberately trying to lose the election is interesting. It seems very unlikely, but if you look more closely they could be trying to avoid the John Major trap. In 1992 Major was unpopular, but not as unpopular as Neil Kinnock, and with hindsight I’m sure most Conservatives would agree that it would have been better to lose in 1992.
If the unthinkable happened and Labour somehow managed to retain a majority, just think how unpopular they would be by 2015. In the slightly more plausible, but still unlikely event of a hung parliament, if Labour formed a minority or coalition government it would be certain to fall within a maximum of 2 years, and at the subsequent election the Conservatives would gain a massive majority – possibly as much as 200.
So it really is in Labour’s best interests for the Conservatives to win in 2010 with a majority of less than 50. That way Labour can recover a bit in 2014, and perhaps return to government as early as 2019.
Of course I personally hope that this doesn’t happen, and I really hope the Labour party disintegrates after the next election, leaving the Libdems as the second party. The most likely scenario is a Conservative majority of around 60-70 next May, increased slightly in 2014, and normal service resumed in 2018/19.
John,
You would make one very shrewd political strategist! (perhaps you are one, I don’t know).
The one fly in the ointment would be that nobody would believe the age/health/family excuses and everybody would see it as an attempt to gain political advantage – which it would be. Still, it is a good idea, and would probably lead to the best result Labour could hope for.
I can guarantee you the Gordon Brown will scarper from the post of PM in the New Year.
While i have nothing against Gordon Brown personally, one has to say that he is prone to unusual thought processes. One could even say that he is somewhat withdrawn from reality.
That being the case, he does not respond to the usual flow of human information. That is the only reason that he has been able to withstand repeated calls to stand down.
So being wrapped up in his own world, just when everyone thinks that he will continue until the GE, say around January or February, he will srping a surprise on everyone and announce that he is resigning his post. I predict that he will do this EVEN if he is closing the gap with the Tories in the polls.
He just does not like any uncertainties. His fear of mistakes is greater than his desire to go down in history as having won an election.
I would go so far as to say that even a 30 point lead in the opinion polls, which would virtually guarantee him the election, would still be insufficient. He only deals in absolute certainties.
But we shall see.
I’ve speculated on this government for so long now, i’m utterly confused. i’m just going to sit back now and see if i’m right.
Ipsos-MORI have now published the detailed datasheets from what they call their “Scottish Public Opinion Monitor September 2009″ (which sounds suspiciously like they intend this to be the first in a new series of Scottish monthly polls – if true this is great news). This is the first MORI voting intention poll in years, and is highly welcomed because the Scottish market is dominated by YouGov, with the occasional Taylor Nelson Sofres poll. Wonderful to get another methodology measuring public opinion.
The big news is: Anthony Wells, Mike Smithson, and (in fairness) everone else published the wrong Headline Holyrood voting intention figures! They published (were only given?) the “All giving a voting intention” figures. As we all know, the Headline Ipsos-MORI figures published by Anthony, Mike and the media for their Great Britain-wide polls is the “Certain to vote” figures.
As we have not a had a MORI poll in Scotland for several years, the bracketed comparison is with the Scottish general election in May 2007:
Ipsos-MORI/Holyrood Magazine
Scottish Parliament voting intention – Constituency Vote (FPTP)
Fieldwork: 20-31 August 2009
Sample size: 1000
SNP 38% (+5)
Lab 25% (-7)
Con 15% (-2)
LD 15% (-1)
oth 7%
Other, previously unpublished, findings include:
Satisfaction with party leaders
- “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way … is doing his job?”
Gordon Brown -14
David Cameron -2
Alex Salmond +18
There are lots and lots more goodies to be extracted from detailed analysis of the datasheets.
In summary, my take on this is that we must remember that May 2007 was the thus-far record high-water mark in terms of SNP electoral performance. If we have seen a 6% swing from LAB -> SNP since then, then we can fully understand why the Labour Party did not want to hold the Glasgow NE by-election on the same day as Norwich N!!
And remember, this is mid-term in Holyrood terms. Not many governments (especially minority ones) perform this well in polling in the mid-term.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/scottish-public-opinion-monitor-charts-september-2009.pdf#page=3
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/scottish-public-opinion-monitor-voting-intention-september-2009.pdf
A Scots poll that gives DC only a -2 rating? He won’t be too upset with that I reckon….
I think I agree with John that an orderly step down would at least get rid of the “brown factor” and make the election more about the futurre than the past.
I agree also with Neil in that a narrow defeat would be better tan a narrow win for Labour in the long run.
The key to that strategy’s success would have to be the unity of the party behind an effective leader. Falling apart after a defeat is always the biggest obstacle to a swift recovery.
Surely Labour would prefer to have a chance of winning in 2015 if they lost in 2010, rather than scraping through in 2010 and then facing two or three terms in opposition after 2015.
If Labour win in 2010 then the chance of a big defeat in 2015 wiould increase as the time for a change would be upon them even more than now.
Stuart – “The big news is: Anthony Wells, Mike Smithson, and (in fairness) everone else published the wrong Headline Holyrood voting intention figures! ”
Unless you’ve just typed the wrong ones too those are the figures I’ve had up there from the start! I got given “all naming” and “certain to vote”, and only published certain to vote since those are MORI “topline” figures.
Good news is that it is indeed probably the start of a series, hopefully there will be another lot at the end of November.
An important issue is morale in the Labour party.
Armies give up fighting when the troops know that they are beaten and have no support at home. The whole army seems to know at the same time.
The Labour Party has been losing lifelong members. Those who remain realise that the party has abandoned the principles which they supported when they joined. They expect to lose the next election.
No election has ever been won by a demoralised party.
It is vital when fighting an election that there is a large, keen, active and optimistic body of party members willing to knock on doors and hand out leaflets. Labour had such a membership in 1997. The SNP has now.
Half a century ago voting in Scotland was class-based and elections were won (usually by the Conservatives) because they were better at getting their natural supporters out.
Unlike every other party, it isn’t all that clear to me who NewLabour’s natural supporters are. I have a clear image of the typical supporter of the BNP, UKIP Socialists and the Greens as well as the FPTP electable parties.
Labours biggest problem is not Gordon Brown. It is that some of the troops have deserted and the rest arn’t keen to fight.
The root cause is probably Blair/Mandelson’s infatuation with big money and the fact that – time after time – they took the likes of the Pheonix Four at their own estimation of their self worth when the economy these people lived in was as different from the one the Labour membership lived in as if they lived in a different country.
The NewLabour government has lost touch with the membership on which its re-election depends and has taken their supporters for granted.
We all make mistakes, but I think that is such an elementary and obvious error that it shows that they are neither fit for office nor likely to retain it unless the alternative is perceived to be even more useless.
The Conservatives cannot win the election, but they can rely on Labour losing it.
@ John B Dick
I would add the caveat that the only possible exception to this was 1992, although I don’t think the Tories were particularly demoralised, Neil Kinnock was not as popular as David Cameron and John Major was certainly not detested as much as Brown is.
John,
Very pertinent observation and I fully agree with you. The near annihialation of Labour’s local governemnt base in England will see them lose more deposits than they did in 1983. In many parts of the country they will have a paper candidate, but no meaningful campaign.
Andrew,
While many people recall that the Tories were riven with splits over Europe under Major, and rightly recall that the ERM debacle was in 1992, it tends to be forgotten that the European split emerged AFTER the April 1992 election and not before.
The Conservative Party was most definitely NOT disunited or demoralised in the run-up to the 1992 election. While the polls may not have been favourable, the party was fighting fit – as evidenced by the result.
Obviously that was not the case in 1997. While many of us were shocked at the scale of the defeat, defeat itself did not come as a surprise.
The parallels with 1997 are ever clearer, and most realistic people in the Labour party recognise that the election is now probably beyond retrieval. Hence so many of them are busy positioning themselves for the inevitable post-election leadership contest.
All governments flag. The public get fed up with them.
The opposition take over.
The process starts again.
Labour would do best to allow that to happen now. Keep Brown. Lose the election.
Then appoint, preferably, a youngish woman as their new leader.
In five or ten years time, the boot will be on the other foot.
As it always is.
Would changing leader again really help Labour?
Has anybody actually conducted any polls to see what effect the act of regicide itself would have? I know the polls put other potential leaders on even lower ratings than Brown, but I’m also interested in the effect it might have on the public perception of party unity.
I’m also unconvinced that another change of leader without an election would endear Labour to the electorate.
Anthony:
“The issue of Europe has extremely low salience with the public, with only 2% or so naming it as an important issue.”
I must be part of the 2% and I find it difficult to answer questions, from YouGov and others which do not appear to distinguish between Sun readers and those who are pro-€ and want it now.
How should my son-in-law answer? He’s Italian and a Glasgow Burgess.
Nor is Europe the only ambigious issue. Until Fiona Hyslop became Education Secretary I was concerned about immigration. Not as Sun readers are, but because agents of the state, in body armour, formerly broke down doors at unsocial hours to remove Scottish schoolchildren to a jail prior to deporting them with their Asylum seeking parents.
The Scottish government have no responsibility for immigration but since they have been in power there have been no such incidents.
If Brown stays the result seems almost certain to be a C Majority of 50-100. If Brown is deposed the result is much less certain, perhaps a hung parliament but perhaps a bloodbath. So only people who would lose their seats on a C Majority of 50 have an interest in deposing Brown.
If it is true that Brown is seriously ill then he might stand down on health grounds. This could get a sympathy vote from Labour voters. But if he has been ill for some time then he might be criticised for not coming clean with people.
Because so many of the electorate are disillusioned with all politicians (apparently apart from Vince Cable), I think it highly probable that there will be an historically low turn-out at the next election. Thus whoever wins will have very little legitimacy in the eyes of the nation as a whole. All manner of problems could follow.
there is a theme that an economic recovery will sae labour. I don’t think so. Brown was in deep trouble even before the crisis began, with talk of leadership challenges commonplace. Indeed the crisis gave him a new lease of life by acting as a crisis manager.
John C
You may have something there.
For those of us who think that elections are usually lost, and seldom won, the fact that there is no great enthusiasm for the expected next government should be of concern.
While there is a positive vote for the SNP in the Scottish Parliament as the only competent pragmatic Scottish controlled government available, they are irrelevant at FPTP Westminster in which they do not fully take part and from which they aim to cecede but as the recipient of negative votes and pour encourager les autres they are in most constituencies by far the best option and in current circumstances bound to do well.
England does not have that choice.
Anthony, surely you would add a “5″ or a “4b”… of New Labour having generally alienated significant chunks of the populace with their “values” and culture – not simply accumulated blame for the management of the bread and butter stuff, but a parallel antipathy with the values that New Labour stands for that has built up over the last decade… what’s often tagged with the cliche “political correctness” label.
It’s not simply Dr Gordon Brown that doesn’t connect with the public… the list is long… Harriet Harman, Mandy, that short redhead woman, Jack Straw, that Scottish one whose sister was sacked from being labour leader in Scotland, Yvette and Ed Balls, tubby Prescott, tubby McNulty, that vulcan Scot Jim Murphy, the new senior balding question dodger they wheel out (I forget his name), that ex-postman bloke with the strangely small ladies hands who was touted as leader, and the numbingly nasal Miliband chuckle brothers … the whole patronising social engineering doublespeaking lot of them.
…there’s plenty of antipathy towards these lot (I feel ill just tapping out their names).
It ain’t just about Gordon…
Aside from that, a very fair and credible assessment.
I think Labour don’t look half as unpopular as they are, only because the Tories and Lib Dems are pretty unimpressive as alternatives.
The best Labour can probably do is to scrape 30%… but I would be surprised if they can manage even that…
My bet is a 1 term tory government, and then a hung parliament.
My reason is that I don’t think the Tories are what people want; they are simply the best way to be sure of deposing NewLabour – which is the overriding objective of the bulk of the public – some out of general antipathy to everything they stand for and the way they attempt to control and communicate with the public; some out of blame for having their expectations raised and dashed (both economically and in other ways – i.e. the anti-war lot); others simply wanting a change of cast of characters for its own sake.
I also believe that we’re heading for a W-recession/depression, whereby the first half filled with unrealistic expectation of the economy “getting back to normal”; and the latter half of the Tory term (2010-2015) seeing a second economic slide, and a lot of bitterness about higher sustained levels onf unemployment and unavoidable cuts in public services. and big projects that lots of jobs (e.g.: IT and defence, and suppliers) would depend on.
I would expect election 2015 to produce a hung parliament, because I think it’ll take that long for Tory support to decay, and for Old Labour-ness to reassert itself… and remain as unelectable as it was in the 80s. Plus the LibDems seem to have a glass ceiling of support that I can’t see ever going away.
The challenge is for new splinter parties and minor parties and whether any of them can get into parliament in any significant numbers. It’s important to remember that the Liberals once had only a couple of MPs…
> And remember, this is mid-term in Holyrood terms. Not many governments (especially minority ones) perform this well in polling in the mid-term.
Really? As far as I can see every single minority government over the last 30 years or so has been polling well in the mid-term…
Sorry, I meant to say every single minority government in the UK over the last 30 years or so has been polling well in the mid-term…
Christian,
“Sorry, I meant to say every single minority government in the UK over the last 30 years or so has been polling well in the mid-term…”
And just remind us how many minority governments the UK has had since 1979? The Lib Lab pact is the only one I know of and that was 77-78.
Peter.
I am not sure about your point, Tony, about Labour no longer facing an unappetising opposition. Agreed, the Tories did very well in Crewe and Nantwich and in Norwich North. But look at the opinion polls. Arguably, the Tories at 41% are about 7% less than where they ought to be on the precedents of previous very unpopular Labour governments, in the 1960s and 1970s. And the LibDems are at least 5% less than where they ought to be, which is certaibly above 20%.
Neither opposition party appears to have a particularly credible message at present. The Tories in particular seem to be on the fence between “Cuts” and middle-of-the-road Conservatism.
And both major opposition parties seem to be stuck in the opinion polls.
How come this static performance of the opposition parties when Labour is nosediving? Of course it’s because of the rise of Others, of which in this context we are concerned not so much with SNP and Plaid as the Greens, UKIP and (remember, we are neutral psephologists, BNP), plus signs (see for instance the Leigh thread). That is where the swings in voting intention are currently to be found, although it is hard for opinion polls, which are really geared to a 2.5 party system, to cope with them.
In today’s “anybody but Labour” atmosphere, this is of course terrible news for the Government. There are more parties manouvering, with considerable sophistication, to pick off Labour seats. This is one reason why the Tory majority is likely to be greater than the polls predict. Another reason is that Labour is I suspect losing a similar percentage of its 2005 vote in every seat, save safe Tory seats where they are already at floor, which, using the usually quoted swing calculations, leads to a higher swing against Labour in safe seats (again. see the thread for the Leigh constituency).
My observations about Others have several important implications. Firstly, the Westminster village parties are largely debating (or instance in Brown’s TUC specch) issues with each other. But they really need to convince voters not to vote Other, not least if they want to minimise the BNP vote. And there is one area in which this is particularly important. The parties are contrasting “Cuts” with the sort of economic policies Labour has been following, monetary injection to stimulate the economy generally. But the voters who are moving to Others care about JOBS, which means targetted investment to revise industry, even if in the short term this means cutting health and education. This is what was done in both World Wars, particularly by Lloyd George in the First World War through the MInistry of Munitions.
If a family is in financial trouble, it can make savings. But when things get really bad you have to eat, buy clothes etc. For which you have to earn money by working. It’s the same for the country. Things are too bad for “Cuts”. We’ve got to earn money to pay off our debts.
Which brings me to a closely allied point. The parties hold up their hands in horror and say that for lack of money and the technical workings of the economy they cannot create jobs. Well, I am sorry. You have just got to create millions of jobs, just as Churchill had to keep the Germans out in 1940. I don’t agree with people like Promsan (above) who think that in 2015 we might go back to a hung parliament with Conservatives. Labour and LibDems. If the Tories get it wrong, and my personal opinion is that their “Cuts” policies (allied to similar actions overseas) will be a total disaster, we will see numbers of right-wing (e.g. BNP) and “popular front” MPs, as in many 1930s European countries (and neither first-past -the-post nor PR would keep them out).
What would I do about it if I could wave a wand over the Labour Party? I was in a local party that crept ahead at local level between 1980 and 1983, and in 1987 I was living in a seat Labour gained, so I have to some extent seen it before. But I must admit it looks far harder now, not least because the union link is breaking as well as membership dropping (I’ve left myself). But here goes:-
1. I would immediately bring in a Leader from outside Westminster, that is what a failing organisation outside politics would do. It would have to be somebody who has parliamentary experience,and successful experience of running of running a directly elected body. It would also have to be somebody with (a) high intellectual ability with qualifications relevant to politics (b) great economic knowledge and ability (c) experience outside elected politics in a senior role (d) sufficient leadership experience to remotivate the Labour Party and get the civil service under control (e) sufficient experience to represent the UK overseas.
That is a very tall order, but actually I think there are two people who at least largely fit it (one better than the other) (I hasten I wrote the person spec, for which I didn’t use any professional techniques or information, without thinking of a person.) But no names as I fear they are unlikely to be both willing and acceptable to do the job. There are a couple other current MPs in other (non-Tory) parties who in my opinion might also measure up.
Anybody meeting this person specification should make Cameron to some extent and Clegg more particularly look inadequate.
2. As the current Labour Constitution assumes the person elected leader is already an MP, it would have to go out of the window. Which means one could totally overhaul the personnel to try to get in and hold ministerial office after the General Election. Incidentally, I would expect there to be women and minority MPs, but not all-woman shortlists. Optimal, fair, personnel procedure to pick MPs (the Tories have actually done much to approach this) doesn’t include such techniques.
3. There needs to be an emergency economic programme. Two things for starters. I would bring in economic measures, including compulsory savings, to deal with the financial crisis along the lines Keynes recommended in the Second World War. And I would kick the backsides of the now nationalised banks to get themselves sorted out and lending. A simple question: why have Santander’s shares soared compared to RBS or Lloyds? And the money would go into whole new industries.
4. The organisational structure of the UK, including the private sector and Quangos as well as the civil service, is just decrepit, unresponsive, flabby and underqualified. Urgent action to sort it out, including the financial complications it has engendered, is essential.
5.The universities and research and development need to be sorted out so that they generate profitable industrial concerns.
6. Something few people mention is that there is a looming crisis to replace the nation’s power plant, whilst of course preventing climate disaster.
7. There are plenty of things to be done in relation to social policy, but economic policy is the priority, with one exception. You can’t motivate people to work to generate wealth with the petty, bureaucratic interferences with human freedom and dignity that Labour has fallen into in recent years. And of course human rights are vital in their own right.
We are into psephological prediction. Such very radical change could just possibly win an election, or at least give Labour a respectable result. It could be more popular than what the Tories or LibDems are offering, even though I fear many minds are already made up. That is why Labour’s organisational change would have to be really spectacular, not just a change of MP as leader.
Well, it’s Friday evening as I write this and I’ve let myself “think outside the box” a little, but that’s my best shot for Labour. I am afraid, however, that Labour has gone too far to change direction towards such ideas. And my suspicion is that they are in a terminal state unless something drastic and charismatic is done: a rump of Labour MPs will fade away like the Liberals between the two World Wars.
Excellent article. What is interesting is that although it is probable that Labour will lose, bearing in mind that the Conservatives have had consistent poll leads of 14-17% over the last two years (apart from during the financial crisis) is that it is unlikely to be a Tory landslide/Labour wipeout due to the swing and Tory lead required to get an overall majority. If the poll lead reduces to 9.5% then there goes Cameron’s overall majority. If Labour get a boost from coming out of recession and Brown departing then we will be in hung parliament territory.
The point is do governments always recover close to an election – no,
but they usually do.
Although, of course, it
could be
(i) a recovery that would happen anyway, almost whenever the real election came near,
as opposed to
(ii) a recovery close to an election to do with a specific time period and events then.
(I do strongly suspect 1992 is an example of point (i).)
I think in the last two elections Labour (and the Tories in 1982-83) were already ahead for a good few months, so there probably wasn’t a further recovery on top of that.
But in 1987 the Tories recovered against 1986/early 1987.
In 1979, Labour recovered against 1976/early 1977, and from the winter of discontent to get a respectable vote.
I think February 1974 is an example where the Tory campaign went down hill.
1970 may simply have been incorrect polls.
But even both those examples showed recovery in the government’s position against 1969 and probably 1973 respectively.
@ Freddie “10,000 words” Stansfield
“Firstly, the Westminster village parties are largely debating (or instance in Brown’s TUC specch) issues with each other. But they really need to convince voters not to vote Other, not least if they want to minimise the BNP vote.”
That would surely only serve to prove beyond doubt that they are in fact a single confederated party, and increase the likelihood of people turning away from them in disgust and dismay – a thing to be applauded… the more “Others” the better… the whole system is ossified, corrupt, and complacent.