Are these the reasons why Labour could win the next election?

Gordon Musgo-Soon

Left wing wishful thinking. Nothing to see here. Do they get paid for writing up their fantasies?

Tiberius

Tell us something we don't know, Kevin.

Why does he think Cameron was elected Party leader? Precisely because the Conservative Party needed someone who has the capacity to deal with these historical issues.

The gift of the Brown non-premiership will be to make Cameron's majority more comfortable. If Labour was not in this dire state, Cameron would do well to reach a majority of 30.

Simon

This analysis (which was no doubted presented in a certain light by Mr Maguire - always one to spin according to instructions) misses the fact that the political landscape has shifted and that we can't always look to the past as a direct guide to the future.

It doesn't take into account the rise of the SNP - which will have a signficant effect on the result. It also ignores the step backwards taken by the LibDems - who, despite what they might say, are failing to make the impact that a third party should achieve.

Also, we need to acknowledge that the BNP are picking up a significant number of votes now - often as a direct swing from disaffected Labour voters. This will not lead to them winning a seat - but it will eat into the Labour vote - particularly in the urban centres.

The reference to Black Wednesday is not as damning as it might once have been. Labour has completely destroyed whatever reputation for economic competence it might have had with the the recent 10p Tax and VED fiascos. People might not blame them for the credit crunch - but they do blame them for tax increases that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale - and that will take a long time to overcome.

Gordon Brown is in a worse position than any other recent PM. Things were bad for John Major but GB is far more the architect of his own misfortune.

Kellner (as skewed by Maguire) seems to have a selective view on events - a broader examination of the picture shows that Labour has more work to do than this analysis might suggest.

Hereford

Phew! And there was me thinking that the Labour Party were in for a drubbing, whatever they do over the next 2 years.

Aidan

Kellner is overstating the position but the basic message is correct - we cannot afford to be complacent with two years still to go before the GE. Lots can happen between now and then. So far Labour is creating lots of reasons not to vote for them, but Cameron is giving the voters precious few reasons for voting Conservative. We really need to start telling people how things will change in the first term.

Fernando

Alternative list:

1. Unwind of tactical voting against the Tories and its replacement by tactical voting against Labour.
2. Tory vote collapsed in 1994-6 and stayed collapsed. See PB website.
3. Labour fourth at Henley behind BNP.
4. Labour and especially Brown blamed for allowing the credit boom to get out of control, for stealth taxes, for a massive increase in government spending with no proportionate increase in efficiency and for dithering over the stamp duty changes.
5. Brown less popular than Major. Brown hopelessly ridiculed and abused by his own side but cannot be removed.
6. Tory nutters marginalised. TUs now financing Labour and wanting something for their money.

Anthony a

One can argue these articles are helpful to the Tories as it reminds them they still need to keep working hard and not to assume the election is already won.

Frank Pulley

Whistling in the dark.

C Powell

Not a good analysis by Kellner. (1) Lots of Labour marginals which don't need a big swing to be lost.
(2) That's what the Tories said before the 97 election. It's wishful thinking.
(3) True but so what. Labour have been given the benefit of the doubt for 11 years and people now realise that they wasted the years and our money and there's precious little to show for it. People are furious with them.
(4)True - but this doesn't help Labour. They don't know what they're for other than to stay in power. To the extent that they have any philosophy it is to make the state as powerful as possible at people's expense. The 10p tax fiasco was Labour's mistake, the waste of money is their mistake: people know that the reason the government can't now help them is because of the previous waste and they sense also the contempt which Labour has for ordinary people, as exemplified by the 10p fiasco.
(5)Some truth in this and I agree with Aidan that the Tories need to do much much more to persuade people to vote for them. But I suspect that the "Get Labour out vote" will be a high one, even if people aren't that persuaded by Cameron.
(6) Maybe - but one look at the future under Labour (ID cards, 8-year olds spying on us, the unions telling the Government what to do, the likes of Balls, Cooper etc in charge) will weigh more. Some people may well feel that it's time for some more hard-edged actions by Government e.g. to control immigration / deal with the terrorist threat in our midst etc. The Tories certainly need to start educating people about the fact that there will be hard choices to make and that they will be firm in defending Britain and its citizens from those who want to take advantage of them or harm them.

If anything there may be a concern that the Tories may be too "soft" in dealing with very real problems and at the first whiff of serious problems/difficulties with the press/squeals from pressure groups/special pleading Cameron's Tories will fold, a bit like Heath did. The Tories need to show some steel so that they can see through the hard times and can take the people with them. They will need to be tough and earn people's respect not just be liked. He's also got to show how he's going to change things for the better across a range of issues. I'm not sure that DC has done that yet.

Englishman Abroad

Oddly enough, Maguire also fails to note that the economic policies that led to our hasty exit from ERM were fully supported by the Labour party. Ergo, had Labour won in 1992, the outcome would have been the same. Although he has managed to create a sterling crisis all of his own over the last six months.
He also seems to forget that no one ever said that Major was dishonest, deceitful, cowardly or bullying. Words frequently used to describe Gordon Brown.

seb

So, if the Tories get a much larger chunk of votes than Labour in 2010, they could still lose? And this is just down to 'political geography'? The political geography of Zimbabwe, methinks.

MartinW

Maguire's first item emphasises the urgent need to balance voting and seats. It is intolerable that our Party has to win 2m more seats to achieve parity in the HoC. This, and the ending of most postal voting should be priority tasks in 2010.

Keith

C Powell has it spot on. The Tories MUST get out now and tell people what they are going to do, even at the risk of Brown stealing the proposals.

John de Finchley

1: Broon may well be relying on the cynical idea that, as long as he can recover to within 10 points, he can deny Cameron victory. It speaks to the character of the man that he'd stoop to reliance on gerrymandered constituency boundaries to cling onto power, but that's Broon. For my money, though, the likelier outcome is that there will be massive tactical voting to get Broon out.

2: The claim that all governments recover from mid-term blues has been comprehensively debunked by Mike Smithson over on www.politicalbetting.com.

First, there are no reliable poll data back to the 1950s, so you can plausibly go back only to the 1970s.

Second, and more important, his analysis shows that the *Tories* always suffer (and somewhat recover) from mid-term blues -- even when they're *not* in government. It's baseless Labour spin that all governments suffer from this.

If you compare Thatcher's poll ratings in 1977, 1981, and 1985 with the subsequent elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987, her support went up at every single election. Ditto John Major in 1992 versus 1991 (the middle of his term, so to speak) and 1997 versus 1995.

But interestingly, *Hague* polled better in 2001 than in 1999, and so did Howard in 2005 versus 2003 (under IDS).

On historical precedent, then, the Tories are more likely than Labour to improve their vote by 2010. Cameron's real lead may in fact be 22 points or so, not 19.

3: There is still plenty of time for things to get worse for Labour. Its whistling in the dark is based on the hope that something will turn up. In fact, given the party's institutional incompetence (they're all lawyers, student politicians, and union hacks), it is more likely that whatever turns up will be bad.

5: Blair's supposed ratings of 60% were a myth. Pollsters have historically always over-rated Labour support, and are very probably still doing so now.

6: Labouroids like to maintain that the Tories in 1997 were hated while they are not. In reality, the Tories in 1997 were hated by luvvies, slebs, writers, Guardian columnists, BBC journalists, and in general the gobbiest and most voluble people in society, who took very good care to ensure we all heard what they thought.

The much greater groundswell of hate for Labour that is evident in poll after poll, in election after election, is just not on these people's radar, and they wouldn't acknowledge it if they were aware of it. So we simply hear less about it, even though it is far more intense. The Labour collapse to ~140 seats in 2010 will take the denizens of the Groucho Club and BBC Broadcasting House totally by surprise, because they just don't talk to - and in fact despise - anyone who doesn't share their insulated bien pensant view of the world.

We can rejoice in the fact that, after 2010, Osborne is going to advertise public sector jobs on a free website instead in the jobs pags of the Guardian. Without that hidden subsidy the Grauniad will be finished, so with luck, some at least of the shriller lefty voices we are forced to subsidise will soon be forcibly silenced. Then it will be al-BBC's turn....

Alex

MartinW is spot on.

I have commented about this before many times; yet am surprised that it hasn't deserved a separate article about it in The Spectator.

There is a very urgent need to balance voting and seats - at present, the current situation is very unfairly skewed in favour of Labour.

I acknowledge there were some boundary changes recently, but of course, but these changes were nowhere near enough (and are now years out of date).

Why aren't the Tories (or better, an independent body) looking to address this?

Verity

David Cameron has to stop poncing about with his little airy-fairy socialism lite and get some muscle into his message. Which he won't do, because, at heart, he's one of them.

The Tories need a new, strong, well-defined leader - David Davis, Patrick Mercer, William Hague again, although I don't think he'd accept it a second time - and put some muscle into their arguments.

The first thing they should do in office (which they will not be with a weak Dave) is redraw the boundaries either more justly, or play the socialist card and redraw them unfairly to their own advantage.

None of this will happen and I have never believed the Tories will get back in at the next election.

Peter Wilson

Point (4) Yet again Labour, like many other commentators as well, are making the mistake that it's just the economy that makes Labour unpopular. While the economy is important it ignores other factors like; 10p tax fiasco, unfair VED hikes on 7 year old cars, failure to uphold a concrete manifesto promise over Europe, continuous loss of personal data, fortnightly bin collections, unaccountable intrusions on our personal lives, relentless tax increases, sats fiasco, the list goes on and on and on.

I presume just blaming the global economy helps make Labour MPs feel a little better, still doesn't avoid the inevitable though

Charlie T

Hardly surprising to see an odious partisan hack like Maguire telling his readers to the decent thing.Just to pass comment on item 4. The state of the British economy is totally down to labour and Brown in particular. Virtually every other country is managing to stay out of recession. Britain's problems are labour/Browns making not because of global conditions.

The begin world economy conditions of most of the last 10 or so years masked labour/Browns ineptitude and allowed them to get away with destroying British traditions and liberties. Now things are getting tougher they stand totally exposed. This is something the Tories need to hammer away at and publicise as much as possible.

Didn't Labour have some billboards up in the 90`s saying something like "The Tories defence policy its not our recession"?

The Laughing Cavalier

The need for 2 million more votes to gain the same number of seats speaks to both the dishonesty of Labour's gerrymandering and the spineless surrended of the electoral conmmission in allowing it.

Charlie T

Just to pick up on something Alex mentioned re the boundary changes . I did mention this on an earlier thread and was taken to task by some fellow coffee housers. I was worried that Labour could still win the next GE as the parliamentary boundaries favoured Labour. But they reckoned under the new parliamentary boundaries the Tories would have had many more seats based on the same votes in 2005. Someone mentioned there would have only a Labour majority of around 20 if today's boundaries were used in 2005. I`m not sure if this is true.

I also agree with Alex that it would be good to see one of the staffers on the Spectator address this point and give us their thoughts based on some solid research.

Aidan

John de Finchley - Sorry but the Guardian is owned by the same people who own Autotrader and other profitable magazines. They can afford to continue subsidising the Guardian.

We already have an independent Boundary Commission, but it's not allowed to take account of the political composition of the constituencies it creates, only their geographical integrity. Having said that, Labour has been very good at persuading them to draw the lines in such a way as to make its seats safer. But the main reason that Labour has more safe seats is that its vote is more concentrated in particular locations while the Conservative vote is more evenly spread around the country.

The only thing that would be certain to level the playing field would be to introduce a form of proportional representation, but this creates a whole host of other problems.

Martin Alexander

Verity...You really do talk a lot of crap. Martin

Ian C

He left one thing off the list - Gordon Brown is Labour's much loved and illustrious leader. That must be worth at least another couple of points in Labour's favour surely Mr Kellner? (snigger)

RMH

Verity, your wish for "The Tories need a new, strong, well-defined leader - David Davis, Patrick Mercer, William Hague again, although I don't think he'd accept it a second time - and put some muscle into their arguments."

Is a policy for opposition. The public wants a smiler, a charmer and smooth man at the top.

In essence they want to be chatted up, and dont care if they get dumped so long as he does it nicely.

Having those you describe in charge of the Tories is plain daft. Having a tough man works well in everything except British politics of the modern era.

No wonder you like McCain the man who calls his wife a ****.....

:-)

David Lindsay

Kellner may well be proved right.

And even if not, the Tories are only on course to be the largest party in a hung Parliament, dependent on the SNP for the majority.

That, one might add, means an end to all talk of extra powers for Holyrood. Salmond's price will be extra cash for Scotland, and especially for SNP-voting parts of Scotland. A price which Cameron would have to pay, because he would have to, no matter what he had to do to find the money.

And that, from the Tories point of view, is the *better* option. Labour might yet win after all.

odin

If Camerloon wins he will be doing it without my vote. I wouldn't trust him even if he stopped his socialist preaching.

Verity

Sorry, RMH, I cannot relate to what you are saying or trying to convey. Cameron is a weak, but very ambitious man who is working for himself and his future advancement and he is not going to offend anyone along the way. Certainly not the EUSSR by telling them to put a sock in it. Because he sees his future at the top table.

In my opinion, the British would prefer someone forthright who was honest about his plans for Britain. The three I referred to above appear to be straightforward and hold strong opinions about the independence of our country.

Verity

You and me both, Odin.

DSR

Martin Alexander:

Verity means "truth" - she can't be wrong!

You're right - it's crap

Kiffa

I just don't get Britain, I really don't. What part of selling the gold reserves and the collapse of pensions and the hosing of OUR money at his stupid unrealistic visions (ending child poverty, social fairness, hard working families blah blah) is the country not absorbing? What is so terrifying about Mrs Thatcher's message (that you help yourself first, then reach out to your neighbour) that the conservatives have to run from it?
Gordon Brown is absolutely loathed on the street, really (look up msn message boards to see some serious vitriol!), in a way I don't think the Labour Party have really absorbed.
So WHY is Britain still falling for the centre-left message? Fraser Nelson, if you or anyone out there can explain this, come forward. Because I don't understand it.

James

Failing NHS, rising unemployment, financial shambles, MPs reputations in tatters after the expenses fiasco and on it goes. No the reason Labour will lose the election is they dont want to win. The MPs are planning their escapes to retire overseas with their ill gotten pensions and lump sums. They will be following in the footsteps of Blair. They will make a half hearted attempt to get votes, but make no mistake, they just want out. If Labour want to win the next election, they need to say 'no win seat, no get pension.' Mandelson and Brown will push through the Lisbon Treaty, without a public vote, and they will obtain some job in Europe with Blair, who also ran away asap to the USA. Why dont heads of state from other countries retire to the UK? Why do ours, and our MPs run overseas and not stay around the mess they in large part created.