CONSERVATIVES currently number 199 in the House of Commons. In order to win a majority of one at the next election, they have to win 324 – an increase of 125, or 63 per cent on the 2005 result.
If Tim Montgomerie is correct, and the Tories have a majority of 100, then they will have had to gain 175 seats, nearly 90 per cent up on 2005. As if such a political earthquake wouldn’t be hard enough to achieve, remember that the Tories have, up until now, still failed to make the breakthrough they need in England’s northern cities. Scotland, which returns 59 MPs to the Commons, currently has one solitary Tory MP. Scottish Tories talk optimistically about increasing that representation by 100 per cent, although that might be a tad optimistic.
In 1997, Labour won 418 seats – an increase of 75 per cent on its 1992 result. But the contrasts with today’s political situation are as important as the similarities. Tony Blair was a politician in an entirely new mould – Cameron is a politician in the mould of Tony Blair. Labour’s lead was consistently in double figures ever since Black Wednesday in September 1992, becoming even more solid when Tony took over. At no point were the Tories in contention. Since Cameron and Brown took over the leadership of their respective parties, there has been, at various times, a large Labour lead and a large Tory lead, as well as more modest leads by each party.
And while Cameron has done exactly what needed to be done by a leader in his position – detoxifying the Tory brand, improving the marketing push – this contrasts badly with the reforms Blair introduced in the mid-1990s: abolishing Clause 4, redrafting Labour’s tax plans, embracing the market. These were all radical measures and flew in the face of established Labour tradition. Cameron, apart from some superficial box-ticking on the environment, has not reinvented his party’s culture or policies, not because he has felt unable to, but because he sees no need to.
Added to this presumption that a Tory victory is inevitable (“And do we really have to consult the electorate? I mean, what do they know about politics?”), we have The Spectator Coffee House making the oddly simplistic and naive assumption that the length and depth of the recession will, on polling day, be directly proportional to the size of the Conservative majority.
This is dangerously complacent. I know this because, working as a press officer for the Labour Party in 1992, I made the same assumption: Britain would never re-elect a government that’s presiding over a recession. Would it…?
Back to top
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 12:32 pm
A Tory victory may not be inevitable.
However all the evidence is pointing that it is looking increasingly likely.
The one thing that feels inevitable is a Labour loss.
There is no new thinking. No new direction.
The only passion seems to be clinging on to office.
All parties need time in opposition to refocus.
Labour has lost the next election.
That is what seems to be inevitable.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 12:55 pm
I think there are a few simple conditions which determine if an election results in change of government.
1. The party in power needs to have presided over a situation that was not good for the country, whether it caused it or not (it can always be argued that any government has some level of responbsibility for what happens).
2. The party in power needs to appear to be more concerned with itself and its own needs, at both an organisation and an individual level, than the needs of the country.
3. The opposition needs to appear moderately competent, concerned for the country more than themselves, and to have earned the chance to have a turn in power.
Lack of condition 3 for Labour determined the 1992 election. Condition 2, sleaze, was predominant in 1997 for the Tories.
So far, No. 1 is going against Labour and will count against them regardless of how much they were to blame. No. 2, as of this morning, could decide things against Labour if it’s proved that Labour peers were prepared to take money for political favours. No. 3 could go either way – the Tories appear moderately competent and focussed but it hardly feels in the bag.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 1:09 pm
You make it seem like a mountain to climb for the Tories, but in reality in many constituencies the majorities Labour won by at the last election can be overturned.
After 11 years you must have p****d off most of the electorate.
We need change!
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 2:01 pm
I read the article this morning. Victory for the tories is not inevitable, for one key reason: As it stands, tory rhetoric aside, you couldn’t get a fag paper between the two parties on the big issues. In addition and so far, neither party has shown the smarts to get us out of this economic mess.
My take is that unless there is some seismic event (brown going to the IMF ala last labour bust), or a catastrophic blunder by the PLP (replace brown with the likes of harman), the electorate may well take the view that when push comes to shove, we prefer the devil we know. I think dave gets this, I’m not so sure about some of the more excitable members of his team.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 2:02 pm
Labour have without doubt currently lost the election but the Conservatives have plenty of time before 2010 to lose it as well. The ‘Cameron caught with Thai ladyboy*’ story has yet to break.
It’s just being realistic to admit your chances are as slim as Eric Pickles isn’t; Labour have just built up so many enemies. Finishing behind the BNP electorally (again) is a strong hint that things are not going swimmingly for you. The European elections are going to be interesting.
Has the BBC covered the fate of Iceland’s PM? I suppose doing so might give the people ideas.
*Non-actionable completely hypothetical example. Besides, with premoderation responsibility for comments rests entirely with Tom Harris MP, whatever he says.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 2:37 pm
Tony Blair’s advice to the 2007 conference was, as ever, sound: “Don’t ignore the polls but don’t be paralysed by them either.” & “Polls now are as relevant as last year’s weather forecast for tomorrow’s weather.”
He also said of the Tories, “If we can’t take this lot apart in the next few years we shouldn’t be in the business of politics at all.”
I do wish, though, that our front bench team was a little less anonymous; even I’d struggle to name many of them. Où sont les big hitters d’antan?
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 2:51 pm
Senator John McCain looked a shoe-in last year when he let Governor Palin off the leash and we all know what happened to him.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 4:19 pm
As far as I can see Labour are almost certain to lose the next election, probably by quite a wide margin.
After ten years in Government Labour is tired and lacking in moral compass. The public (at least those who aren’t directly dependent on Labour for their incomes) seem to feel that it’s time for change…
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 4:24 pm
You will loose the next election. Tories will make gains in England, NI. and Wales and the SNP in Scotland. Result Labour out.
Do you realy think you can get away with what you have done. If so dream on.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 5:11 pm
NuLabor do have a chance.
1 – How many jobsworths are employed by goverments to enforce stupid rules and regulations
2 – How many people in senior positions owe their jobs to political favours
3 – How many people depend directly or indirectly on political patronage
4 – How many people don’t think and just vote how they always have
I would also add that there are some sad people who actually believe that millipeed, mandy and broon are honourable and not self serving.
A lot depends on the LibDems taking votes from the labourites who can’t bring themselves to vote conservative, even though they know it is the righteous thing to do and that on election day the turnout is high.
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 7:02 pm
Having watched the UK Pollwatch website for the past couple of months, the only conclusion i can come to is that the polls are more volitile than the pollsters are aware. I have 2 predictions for you though. 1) Brown won’t go for an election this side of the council and Euro elections, a GE will not take place before early summer and 2) Cameron will win the next election, but with a majority in single figures. This is because many people still don’t trust the Tories, especially comedy Dave and the Boy George
Sunday 25 January 2009 at 8:03 pm
@ Chris Willis
Although Labour have built themselves a vast client-state over the past ten year (nearly doubling the number of public sector employees was an excellent start, closely followed by more than doubling the number of people on some form of benefits) it’s mostly comprised of those who are statistically less likely to vote.
Conservative voters, however, are much more likely to come out to vote this time now that that nice Tony Blair fellow has disappeared.
Monday 26 January 2009 at 12:02 am
@Tom Harris: “..This is dangerously complacent. I know this because, working as a press officer for the Labour Party in 1992, I made the same assumption: Britain would never re-elect a government that’s presiding over a recession. Would it…?”
But you fail to mention that you had Neil Kinnock as leader in 1992, a man who was (is) full of his own self-importance but ultimately lacking any real ability. Now, Labour has a leader full of his own self-importance and patently, obviously, lacking in any real ability and presiding over not just a recession (that he caused) but an economic disaster for this country that could well turn into a depression that will last for years.
Britain would never re-elect a government that’s presiding over a recession? No, it wouldn’t!