Ahead of last week’s by-election I predicted that the gap between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election would be narrower than the 17-point Labour lead reported by two opinion polls conducted a week before polling day. I argued that the history of by-elections in Labour seats suggested two things would happen: Labour would fall short of its poll numbers because of low turnout; and, with the Conservatives trailing in third place, some of their supporters would switch to the Lib Dems.
Both things duly happened, and Labour won by 10 points, not 17. However, the telling thing is that Labour’s support on the day fell only slightly short of its poll rating. Debbie Abrahams won 42% of the vote, compared with polling figures of 44% (ICM) and 46% (Populus). In the past, much larger gaps have appeared between poll numbers and actual votes.
This confirms that Labour is getting better at the ‘ground war’ of elections. This was evident in a number of marginal seats in last year’s general election, and seems to have been carried through to the Oldham East and Saddleworth campaign. The Populus poll commissioned by Lord Ashworth found that Labour had matched the Lib Dems in the number of voters they had spoken to, either face-to-face or by phone.
One other piece of evidence points the same way. Last May Phil Woolas won 14,186 votes. Last week Debbie Abrahams won 14,718. The increase was only modest; but it is rare for either Labour or the Tories, when defending a seat in a by-election, to win more votes, in absolute numbers, than in the preceding general election. Normally the fall in turnout pulls their voting numbers down, even when their percentage vote increases. In their 13 years in opposition, the Conservatives NEVER managed to increase their vote in a seat they were defending.
That said, we should beware reading too much into the result. By-elections are peculiar events. And Labour did particularly badly last May, not just nationally but in Oldham East and Saddleworth. After taking account of boundary changes, Labour won 17,381 votes, and almost 43% of the vote, in 2005. That was when Labour, though winning a third term in office, secured just 36% of the vote across Britain. The joy of not quite returning to their 2005 percentage figure in a by-election now should be confined and cautious. This was a two-cheers-for-Labour result, not a three-cheers result.
If we are to look to the future, a better guide is to be found in our survey of Britain’s ‘squeezed middle’ for the Sunday Times Magazine. This shows that two-thirds of the public are ‘finding it tougher to get by than for many years’. People at every income level feel this. They include as many as 51% of those whose household income is more than £50,000 a year.
Electorally, however, the people who matter most are those at neither the top nor the bottom of the income scale. We have defined ‘squeezed middle’ as those who say they are finding it tougher to get by AND whose overall household income is £20-£50,000 a year. They comprise around one-third of all adults.
Perhaps the most striking comparisons are between those in the ‘squeezed middle’ (SM) versus those in the same household-income bracket who are NOT finding things tougher (NSM). They are demographically similar - age, number of children etc (though slightly more SMs are working, and slightly fewer retired). The biggest demographic difference is that 49% of SMs have mortgages, compared with 32% of NSMs.
These are some of the key differences.
- Voting intention: SMs: 15% Lab lead; NSMs: 23% Con lead (total sample: 2% Lab lead)
- Is the Government cutting spending fairly or unfairly? SMs: 33% fair, 60% unfair; NSMs. 51% fair. 37% unfair
- Is the Government targeting middle classes? 72% of SMs agree, compared with only 46% of NSMs
- Are ‘people like me bearing brunt of tax increases and spending cuts’? SMs: 89% agree, NSMs 46% agree.
So: there is a palpable sense among a politically crucial one-third of the electorate that they have been picked on, are suffering unfairly, are worried about the future, and are (relatively) pro-Labour. Some of them will have switched to Labour in last week’s by-election.
Whether they will switch to Labour nationally in large enough numbers in four years time to make Ed Miliband Prime Minister is another question. This depends on whether Labour can (a) pin the blame for the deepest of the coming cuts on the coalition and (b) persuade Britain’s ‘squeezed middle’ that Labour can be trusted once again to run the economy fairly and efficiently in the future. Last week’s by-election was a start for Labour as it seeks to fight back, but only a start.
