In recent weeks leading, Labour optimists have sensed that the coming election need not be a lost cause after all. Are they right?
Their argument goes like this: “The Conservatives’ poll lead has been shrinking. They need an 11-point lead to secure an overall majority; some recent polls have shown them falling short of this goal. Governments normally gain ground as general elections approach; if Britain’s economy is seen to start growing again, this could help Labour further. So will the TV debates. If we can get the Tory lead below six points then Labour could end up the largest party in the new House of Commons. Even if we don’t manage that, we could harass the Tories if they fall short of an overall majority; David Cameron’s could be the shortest-lived government since 1924.”
I have no special wish to spoil anyone’s new year; but if Labour is to make a fist of the coming election, it must start with a hard-headed view of what is really going on; and the true picture is not as rosy as that assessment suggests. Let’s take each assertion in turn.
“The Conservatives’ poll lead has been shrinking.” Up to a point. Between May and July, YouGov recorded 16-19 point leads. In recent weeks the range has been 9-13. One much-reported MORI poll in November put the lead at just six points, but this now looks like an outlier. Apart from a brief rise in Labour’s support in the days following the pre-budget report, most polls have shown the Tory lead remaining in double figures.
“They need an 11-point lead to secure an overall majority”. That figure assumes that the national swing is reflected in the marginal seats the Tories are targeting. There is some evidence – such as a recent YouGov/Telegraph poll in northern Labour marginals – that the Tories will achieve a higher swing in these seats. Why? Because Labour has benefited from tactical anti-Tory voting in its key seats at the past three elections; this may well start to unwind this time. If the Tories secure a nine-point lead, they will probably achieve an overall majority. All recent polls bar two have shown them achieving this, so it’s stretching things to say “some recent polls have shown them falling short of this goal.”
“Governments normally gain ground as general elections approach.” This used to be true, but not for the past 20 years. The picture is complicated by the way all the polls overstated Labour’s support in 1992, and most did in 1997 and 2001. If we correct the data to allow for the polls’ errors, we find that there was no significant government recovery ahead of the last four general elections. As those personal finance ads say, past performance is not a reliable guide to future behaviour. Maybe Labour will gain ground this time. My point is that this cannot be assumed to happen automatically. Something must occur to make it happen.
“If Britain’s economy is seen to start growing again, this could help Labour further.” This must be one of the party’s great hopes. The next few weeks should see official data showing growth in the fourth quarter; and unemployment may not now rise as much as was feared. But we should be cautious: the economy did remarkably well between 1993 and 1997, yet this did little to help the reputation of John Major’s government. That had been shot to pieces by Black Wednesday in 1992; and Labour, likewise, will be burdened at the coming election by the current vast government deficit and memories last winter’s sharp recession. I expect economic recovery to help Labour a little, but not much.
“So will the TV debates”. Perhaps. It will be Gordon Brown’s gravitas and mastery of detail versus David Cameron’s youth and freshness. In the first US debates, the contest was between Richard Nixon’s experience and John Kennedy’s charisma. Kennedy won. All one can say at this stage is that the Britain’s first TV debates could go either way.
“If we can get the Tory lead below six points then Labour could end up the largest party in the new House of Commons.” Again, this assumes the marginals behaving like Britain as a whole. I believe the Tory target is lower: a 3-4 point lead could be enough to make them the largest party. In other words, although there will still be a pro-Labour bias in the way votes translate into seats (that is, Labour could still win fewer votes but more seats than the Tories), the bias will be less than it has been for the past fifteen years.
A minority Cameron administration could be “the shortest-lived government since 1924”. Don’t bet on it. Ramsay MacDonald’s government survived just ten months. If the Tories end up the largest party but short of an overall majority, I would expect Cameron to form a minority government, rather than do a deal with the Lib Dems, and hold – and win – a second election within a year. If the Tories win more seats than Labour in the coming election, they should be safe until at least 2014, unless inept economic policies detonate another recession, and/or tax rises provoke howls of pain. Otherwise, the only people with the power to cut short a competent Cameron premiership will be Europhobic Tory backbenchers behaving as they did to Major.
In other words, if Labour loses, its MPs and activists will be little more than bystanders to a drama they cannot control. To regain power, their main task will be to stop the party descending into the kind of civil war that caused so much damage thirty years ago. And that will be quite demanding enough to keep them fully occupied.
This commentary was first published in the January 4 issue of the New Statesman
