The Osborne general election predictor says it is dead-level between Cameron and Brown
James Forsyth 4:41pm
In 2004, George Osborne wrote a piece for The Spectator setting out ‘The 13 keys to Number 10’. It was adapted from one of those American guides that predict who will win presidential elections. In 2004, Osborne predicted Tory victory using it but that was more due to some scoring decisions that were based more on loyalty than reality. Indeed, going through it in a more sober fashion would have given you the correct result.
Anyway, here are the 13 keys and my thoughts on who has the edge on each:
1. Real per capita economic growth during the parliament equals or exceeds the mean growth during the previous two parliaments.
No.
2. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
It’ll depend when the election is: If Brown goes in 2009, it certainly will be. But if he waits until May 2010 the economy might just have begun to recover.
3. There is no sustained social or industrial unrest during the parliament.
Yes: More than a million days were lost to strikes during 2007, that’s considerably higher than the 1990s average of 660,000 days. But it is far lower than the average for the 1980s—7.2 million days—and 1970s—12.9 million days.
4. The government has effected a major change in domestic policy.
Yes: The change wasn’t planned but no one can deny that the changes have been big.
5. The government has achieved a major foreign policy or military success.
No: One person I discussed this with thinks that Brown should score a point for the bank bailout on the grounds that whatever the truth of the claim, the public do seem to think that Brown led the way.
6. The government has suffered no major foreign policy or military failure.
Yes: Iraq is so perceived as Blair’s war that it has minimal effect on Brown’s standing. The Afghan mission is in trouble and unpopular with the public, but the fact it has yet to become a major issue and the bi-partisan consensus on it means that I won’t score it up as a major failure.
7. The government is untainted by major scandal.
Yes: I’m sure Coffee Housers could rattle off a list of Labour scandals but nothing has ingrained itself on the public consciousness. Cash for honours, which could have done, is too associated with Blair to hurt Brown. What Osborne wrote in 2004 still holds true today, “Despite the string of ‘gates’ — Mittalgate, Mandygate, Cheriegate — there has been nothing like Profumo or the drip-drip of scandal that affected the Tories in the mid 1990s.”
8. The governing party is not seriously divided.
Yes: It was over the summer but these differences generally do seem to have been put aside for the moment. There is now no realistic challenger to Brown and with Mandelson on board Labour has united for one last hurrah. However, if Labour does lose, the factions will fly at each other with a passion.
9. The Prime Minister is regarded as charismatic.
No: Even the planned Labour ad campaign for the election that never was recognised this with its 'Not Flash, Just Gordon' tagline.
10. The Prime Minister is new since the last election.
Yes
11. The main opposition party is seriously divided.
No: The Tory party is far more united now than it has been at any time since the 1987 election.
12. The leader of the opposition is regarded as uncharismatic.
No: Say what you like about Cameron, but he has star power. Labour’s ‘slick salesman’ jibe is an implicit recognition of that.
13. The government has been in office for less than two terms.
No.
By my count, the final tally is Brown 6 Cameron 6. This, obviously, isn’t a scientific exercise but it must rather worry Osborne who wrote in 2004 that “I’ve checked back over 30 years of elections and if the sitting Prime Minister can lay claim to six or more, then he or she wins.”
Previous
Drew
December 17th, 2008 5:25pm Report this commentInteresting test, which is fairly evenly divided at the moment. But looking at those questions, it is clear that other than the economy growing again by the time the election is held, there is little upside for labour.
Whereas on the downside for labour, splits could easily reemerge particuarly over reform of Royal Mail and the Welfare System and if Brown's poll ratings tank again.
As for foreign policy, failure in Afghanistan or Pakistan (which in both worringly look likely) would be seen as military failure in the case of the former and a foreign policy failure in the case of the later.
As for scandals, with ministers like Mandelson and Jackie Smith, the Government is asking for trouble on this front.
Also while you are technically right that Brown is a new PM, his lack of an elected mandate and his presence as the second most powerful man in Government for all of the Blair years, makes him seem less of a change than any Prime Minister since Eden.
seb
December 17th, 2008 5:39pm Report this commentStop worrying whether Brown wins. Any government he's capable of forming has a very limited shelf-life. The English, who form the overwhelming majority of UK voters, will give him an even greater Vote of No Confidence than he received in 2005 in the English constituencies. The Depression will bankrupt his Treasury.
Eventually, Brown will have to go. I expect he'll be kicked out by his colleagues as the realisation dawns on them either that he's certifiably insane or that they really will be wiped off the electoral map if he hangs on.
Outside of blind patriotism, what other reason would a sane man have for wanting to head the UK's government over the next few years?
Verity
December 17th, 2008 6:21pm Report this commentI don't agree with you that Cameron is charismatic, James. Perhaps he is if you meet him in person, but from the outside, he is distanced and self-applauding. Charismatic people don't put windmills on their roofs and cycle to work in little twinky cycling helmets.
Interesting piece, though.
Ian Walker
December 17th, 2008 6:29pm Report this commentWhat the list says to me is that the Tories have to fight dirty.
While you concentrate on the 'industrial' side of unrest, Labour have appeased the unions enough to probably avoid a 'winter of discontent'. Presumably the 'social' side means rioting - this bears out because a Labour equivalent of the poll tax riots would be catastophic for their election chances. However, the Conservatives cannot openly campaign for civil disobedience, unlike Labour and their Socialist Worker footsoldiers.
Therefore, the only Labour plus point that it's possible to fight over is the scandal one. So dirt needs to be dug, muck needs to be raked and tittle needs to be tattled.
Fight dirty, Tories, your country needs you!
michael booth
December 17th, 2008 6:42pm Report this commentInteresting yes, I grant you. But come on. who can honestly say they feel happy and secure with Brown and Darling in charge of the economy? Brown might say it is all down to globilisation, but he was a major player in the global economic system...
we have been shafted.
he raided pensions, sold off our gold reserves and made a pig's ear or successive budgets. What continues to baffle me is that Flash Gordon is still seen by many as a safe pair of hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Diversity
December 17th, 2008 7:21pm Report this commentLike most other indicators now, this points to a hung Parliament. Is it just possible our luck could be good enough to get Cable as Chancellor?
Hysteria
December 17th, 2008 7:44pm Report this commentI'm with Verity on the charisma thing - DC seems a nice enough chap, as chaps go - but not charismatic. Which kinda begs a question - why is this important in a political leader? And if it is deemed important - then who in the Tory ranks has the star quality?? No-one springs to mind - which is a tad worrying !
stormforce999
December 17th, 2008 9:57pm Report this commentOf course compared to any MP I can think of, DC is charisma personified. Which is worrying because I don't entirely disagree with Verity.
TGF UKIP
December 17th, 2008 10:48pm Report this commentThe more interesting question might be James, to what extent this 6-6 could have been shifted decisively in the Tories favour if they had been as ferociously effective an opposition as Labour were pre 97. Item 7 would have a very different answer for a start in the hands of a Tory Campbell or Mandelson. The Tories have at best been an anaemic opposition.
With regard to item 12, I am afraid you have a predictably Spectator, metropolitan and Home Counties view of Dave. Elsewhere the view is distinctly less charitable and more inclined towards the Private Eye view as the polls tend to bear out.
Fascinating post though, with I suspect as many answers as there are Coffee Housers.
TrevorsDen
December 17th, 2008 11:09pm Report this commentCable is an idiot. Just bummed up by the BBC
teledu
December 18th, 2008 4:01pm Report this commentThe major stumbling block to Brown calling an early election is that, if he did, it might scupper the EU ratification of the Lisbon Constitution. He'll have to wait until after the Irish referendum rerun. I'm sure Mandelson has told him that. The EU project comes first; all other "tests" for potential election dates come second to that. The EU project comes first: remember that.
seb
December 18th, 2008 5:27pm Report this comment@ teledu
You have to be right. Mandelson, like Chris Patten, Mr. and Mrs. Kinnochio and others, is only interested in Project Federation, the Final Frontier, certainly as far as Princess Tony, Manduja's real 'best friend' is concerned. In the next election, as in the previous three, the issue of the EU will play only a surprisingly small role in deciding where the votes go. This time, Joe Q. Sunreada will be wetting himself over his own job prospects and profoundly indifferent to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. President-elect Blair of the US of Europe? It's certainly still a top Manduja priority.
Back to top