Probably a bit of an outlier result – sudden jumps often are – but the trend is definitely towards Labour right now.

That’s not surprising. It is around this time (6 months later) that defeated parties tend to start making some headway in the polls. Obviously Labour are somewhat ahead of trend because off the collapse in Lib Dem support – much of which has gone to Labour. But now’s about the time policies start coming through.

We’ve seen stories this week about 26,000 nurses being sacked – a quarter of Manchester’s constabulary too – and of course the fees fiasco.

So the public is now starting to feel under pressure and starting to question policy – which is why Labour are able to start taking support from the Tories.

“So the public is now starting to feel under pressure and starting to question policy – which is why Labour are able to start taking support from the Tories.”

I think there is another question here as well – to what extent do either Cameron or Clegg care?

The next gen election is still 4 years away, and I think there is every indication that Cameron is following a strategy of doing the unpopular stuff now so that in 3 years time he can start announcing the goodies to regain support. It’s pretty much a masterclass in how to govern a democratic country and still do unpopular stuff. The question is how do labour respond?

@Planeshift,

Labour’s strategy has to be to drive apart the coalition and force an early election. There will be no major changes until the local and devolved elections in May (and the AV referendum, assuming we get it), at which point a real slump in representation for the Lib Dems could cause them to lose their nerve. That could plausibly lead to Clegg, or a new leader, abandoning the coalition altogether, or even a split within the party.

All this is very unlikely, but the probability of it happening increases as the Lib Dems go lower in the polls. So Labour have to focus on making the May results as bad as possible for the Lib Dems. That’s my take on it, anyway.

As you say, if the full five-year term elapses, the unpopular decisions the coalition is taking now will be a distant memory and the 2015 elections will be very difficult for Labour.

“at which point a real slump in representation for the Lib Dems could cause them to lose their nerve”

I don’t think they will. If lib dems lose there nerve they will be forever consigned to oblivion, it has to be part of their long term strategy to normalise coalitions in british politics. They can only do this by make them ‘safe’ in the eyes of the public. i.e. not collapsing everytime their backbenchers throw a tantrum, and actually being seen not to have a disproportionate influence given their size. They need to actually be seen to make compromises.

If the coalition falls prior to this, then the lib dems may as well split into the orange book faction (going to the tories) and the centre left lot (going to labour). This will return the UK to a 2 party system for the next few decades – which cannot remotely be in the interests of both right wing libertarians or socialists, progressives etc. I don’t even think it would be in the interests of labour.

Labour’s strategy has to be to drive apart the coalition and force an early election. There will be no major changes until the local and devolved elections in May (and the AV referendum, assuming we get it), at which point a real slump in representation for the Lib Dems could cause them to lose their nerve.

So, the Lib Dems are going to wait until their support is at its lowest, and then force a General Election? I can see why Labour might want this to happen, but I can’t see why the Lib Dems would charge willingly to annihilation.

5

Although I’m sure many LD’s are unlikely to act like turkeys voting for Christmas, there may indeed come a point when some at least of the LD MP’s and membership more generally decide the game isn’t worth the candle.

Obviously when (or if) that point comes, and how large the number who are tempted to push the nuclear button is, remains to be seen.

For LD’s and the Tories, the best case scenario is that things don’t all go horribly wrong, Coalition and LD support holds up, the AV referendum goes well, they don’t suffer a melt-down at the elections next May, and they can “sell” the deficit reduction measures they are taking as the only game in town.

However, if this proves not to be the case there is a real danger that the LD leadership will not be able to hold the party together, and that it will split if not self destruct. There may well come a point when some within the LD’s see that as preferable to continuing in Coalition which may simply be putting off the inevitable drubbing come the next GE.

Planeshift

To an extent the Tories can be sanguine about this for a while. But only for a while.

Planning to hand out readies in three years time is one thing – expecting their own MPs and financial backers to keep their traps shut every time they don’t get their way on an issue is quite another.

While a party is up in the polls, those upset at this decision or that decision basically have to keep their trap shuts or sound like ignorable oddballs. We saw that under Blair in the early days. But when a party is down in the polls that changes a lot. Sniping and talk of alternative leaders and policies drain credibility (look at Brown) and Cameron will not want to risk that.

So if they find themselves regularly 10 points down on Labour in six months or a year’s time – the chances are Cameron will not be pleased and will be desperate to turn that round.

So if they find themselves regularly 10 points down on Labour in six months or a year’s time – the chances are Cameron will not be pleased and will be desperate to turn that round.

This has largely been priced in by the Conservative leadership. Last year they were predicting that if they won the election, they would probably be the most unpopular Government ever by the end of the year. That’s what happens when you have to cut public spending. It’ll only be if economic recovery does not lead to political recovery that they’ll get worried.

Agree with planeshift at #4 – makes no sense for Libdems to jump out when they’re at their lowest ebb, and also right about the Libdem need to ‘normalise’ Coalitions.

Labour has to respond in my view by assuming it will be a full 5 year coalition.

This has largely been priced in by the Conservative leadership.

They all say that in advance, but when it actually happens the reality is harder to swallow.

Tim is right, both Clegg and Cameron know what they are doing and are proceeding on the basis that polls are not the way to govern. Achieve all the tough stuff in the first 3 years and then you’ll be in a position to start handing out the goodies. Expect an income tax cut by the next election. It’s pretty much textbook politics, and makes Blair’s failures all the more obvious.

Also consider another factor for Ed Milliband. Would he rather: (1) wait 4 and a half years then fight the next election with the political capital gained from opposing cuts, whilst also knowing that a growing economy and no deficit considerably widens his options, or (2) smash the coalition in the next year, knowing that a labour government in 2011 will face limited options – ie. will only be able to slow the pace of cuts down.

It is in both lab and the lib dem’s interest that the coalition remains in power. shame that the national interest is the opposite.

Planeshift

Like Tim I fear you are under the impression the government is David Cameron.

It is in fact a collection of disperate but largely right wing individuals who have their own minds, their own constituencies, and their own personal and policy agendas.

David Cameron might have priced in a strong Labour leader in a year’s time. But that doesn’t mean his MPs of whichever colour rossette will go along with that. It would be a rather unique political experience if they did.

Cameron will not want to see Labour reach a double digit lead. At that point he’ll face reblion and a mantra of failure and impending doom.

margin4error,

I think you’ll find that the coalition realise what they are doing – your analysis requires MPs to not realise that the massive ‘cuts’ they are imposing is in fact likely to be at least temporarily unpopular. However low your opinion of MPs, I think they can all grasp this.

So the coalition is signed up for this and know the consequences. Support in the low 20s might cause panic, but not Conservative support in the mid-high 30s (still).

Cameron will not want to see Labour reach a double digit lead. At that point he’ll face reblion and a mantra of failure and impending doom.

Maybe, but the internal narrative that the Tories, both front and backbench, have been talking about for the last couple of years is that the first few years in Givernment would be extremely unpopular. That’s a natural consequence of trimming public spending.

The question that matters is where the aggro is coming from. Unless the Tories are getting seriously outflanked on the right, by UKIP say, then I don’t see the right of the party as getting especially rebellious.

We’ll see and all that, but I don’t see a direct read across from the fag-end of a three term Government to the second and third years of a new Government. Disillusion generally takes longer.

As for the Lib Dems, I’m much less qualified to speak, but in general terms I’d have thought they’re both less likely to deal well with unpopularity, but also even more tied into the Coalition than the Tories.

I don’t see any of Cameron’s right wing critics rebelling at this stage, only if the goodies of tax cuts aren’t on the horizon by 2014 will that happen. At the moment they are probably impressed by the speed of deficit reduction and willingness to do so despite unpopularity. If anything it will just raise expectations for what can be achieved when the finances recover and options become increased.

I think the most likely scenario is a few left leaning lib dems defect to labour in exchange for safe seats/house of lords, and Cameron hands out a few goodies to lib dem backbenchers.

I think the most likely scenario is a few left leaning lib dems defect to labour in exchange for safe seats/house of lords

I can certainly imagine this happening – someone like Mike Hancock, who used to be a Labour MP after all, or even Charles Kennedy (though that’s a bit of a long shot).

There are a couple of points to be made here.

First, Labour are light on policy. Do you know what they would do about education, HE finance, health, defence, tax? We are about to go through a great sell-off of public services, so large that it will make Thatcher’s privatisations look like a market stall, yet we have no clue what Labour’s response will be. Low polling for the government is because of their policies and not because of Labour’s (people are thinking “dear god, anything other than this!”). Labour will only get into regular double digit leads when they have got some policies. They are looking like they will fail on this.

Second, collapse of the coalition. I wish it would happen, but how? There are enough LibDems as ministers to neutralise the effect of any LibDem backbencher voting against the government. The one problem with this is that it has pissed off lots of Tories who had assumed that they would be part of the government. The FT reports today that in 59 out of 110 votes so far in this parliament some Tories have rebelled. This number is, apparently, unprecedented in a post-war government. In response, Cameron has created 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, that is, more jobs for the boys to buy their votes. (The number of PPSs is unusually high.) This suggests that the best chance of a rebellion is from the Tories. (Note also Redwood’s blog where he says that the grassroots regard the government as “they” rather than “us”.)

If Labour wants to force this government into a collapse they have to target Tories not LibDems. The LibDems are already trussed up as part of the coalition, and their 60 year lust for power means that they will agree with any policy as long as they can think they are running the country. (This is the “milk monitor” effect.)

Tories are a different kettle of fish, especially those who feel they are constituency MPs. Look at the rebellion when Gove cut BSF. When Tory constituencies were affected, and Tories found that it was *their* school that would not be refurbished they started to whine. Labour’s best plan is to find out what will be the policy that will affect constituency Tories the most. It has to be an iconic policy, where the collapse would break the government.

In my opinion the NHS is the policy that can bring down this government. Already Stephen Dorrell is at loggerheads with Lansley saying that the efficiency savings are the priority and not Lansley’s re-organisation. But it goes further. The right wing thinkers in the government are planning a huge sell-off of the NHS and this will impact on many of the shire Tories. Inherent in Lansley’s plans is “competition”. In healthcare there is already competition in cities, since that is where the private hospitals are based. (Indeed, NHS hospitals in London already have thriving private businesses, some as high as 30% of patients are private – a Labour policy.) NHS hospitals in the shires are monopoly providers, there are no competitors. So Lansley’s plans will mean either bringing in private suppliers into an NHS hospital, or closing down an NHS hospital department and outsourcing to a private hospital. These will be very unpopular locally, and shire Tory MPs will get a lot of flak.

A couple of weeks ago I explained this to the MP (a socially conscious Tory) in my constituency (a rural constituency) and at the end he was ashen-faced as he realised that the voters would treat him very badly if what I described happened to the local hospital.

Labour must highlight the Tories ambitious NHS privatisation plans and at the same time, they must reverse their own privatisation plans and re-affirm their belief in the public sector. The result would be to force a collapse of Lansley’s NHS plans and to make the public realise that Labour are the party of the public sector. At the moment Blair’s “third sector” infects the party. Until we have disinfected ourselves we have no chance of bringing down this government.

16

“At the moment Blair’s “third sector” infects the party. Until we have disinfected ourselves we have no chance of bringing down this government.”

Great. Even from beyond the grave we get screwed by New Labour.

It’s going to take years for that level of disinfection, which only leaves us to hope that the Coalition somehow implodes…….

Tim, Charles Kennedy is probably less of a long shot given the way he was treated. A decent retirement job – EU commissioner perhaps – will surely tempt him. Lembit also, given he is now prostituting himself so low he can probably be had for an administrative post in labour HQ. A few others may be tempted as well.

The really interesting question is Phil Woolas if he loses his appeal. I could certainly see him in 4/5 years time doing a kilroy silk and leading an EDL style political force. In fact might put a few quid on it.

Tim, Charles Kennedy is probably less of a long shot given the way he was treated. A decent retirement job – EU commissioner perhaps – will surely tempt him.

The problem is that oppositions have no rights of patronage – which is why defections usually go the other way. The only real incentive Labour would have would be a safe seat for a threatened Lib Dem…

watchman – Tim – Planeshift

I admire your optimism here – but my view of politicians is that they quickly think they could do better and qucikly convince themselves in the face of unpopularity that the route to success is that the public wants exactly what they want.

Hence look at Lib Con’s own assessment of Labour (post 2010 defeat) that it needed to get back to its roots – when clearly the result at every level of analysis shows Labour won strongly in its heartlands and lost heavilly where it relies on centre-ground voters.

It is easy for the leadership to present a narrative of stoicism in the face of public disquiet while it is still relatively popular. It is quite another for the party to abide by that narrative when it is unpopular.

Indeed – if you have any example from British politics of that ever happening – please let me know.

Where the polls are now it is fine – significant worsening of them for the tories would become a problem. (Plenty of the party and its backers are pst with Cameron simply for not having got a majority in the first place.)

m4e,

Try the Conservative party in 1981 – my understanding is they were deeply unpopular but pushed on with their policies.

I am not being optimistic – I just think there is currently a culture in parliament where being seen to be more concerned with your seat than the good of the country and its people would make you an easy target, and that this means people are not going to be playing to the polls so much.

Incidentally, this entire thread could be equally well explained by Guido’s observation that Labour improve their poll rating when they have no visible leader, so you do realise we are building a rather large number of assumptions into this debate?

Incidentally, this entire thread could be equally well explained by Guido’s observation that Labour improve their poll rating when they have no visible leader, so you do realise we are building a rather large number of assumptions into this debate?

It’s not so much that they have no visible leader, as the fact that Labour are the repository of ‘anti-Government’ votes. Closer to an election, when it becomes a choice between parties, Labour will do well if they retain their lead.

20 @margin4error

Hence look at Lib Con’s own assessment of Labour (post 2010 defeat) that it needed to get back to its roots – when clearly the result at every level of analysis shows Labour won strongly in its heartlands and lost heavily where it relies on centre-ground voters.

Except that the “heartlands” vote were voting with their hearts, not their heads. As I described above, the Blairite “reforms” are just a watered down version of what is being thrust on us now. Cameron truly is the heir to Blair The “heartlands” hoped that that it was not true. It is about time that Labour asked people what they want rather than telling them what’s best for them.

For example, as reported here yesterday, 32 Community Health Services around the country were taken out of public ownership as “social enterprises”. The 32 projects were £900m worth of services, which turns out to be quite a small proportion of Community Health Services in England, and shows that there isn’t the stomach yet for such privatisations. (In my area, the Community Health Services, £56m of it, 15% of the NHS spending, were taken over by the local NHS hospital. I guess this happened in most places.) However, this is just the start, everything else in the NHS will be sold off soon.

Typical Tory privatisation? Not a bit of it. These 32 projects join 29 existing ones. This policy, of taking NHS services out of public ownership, was a Labour policy. How many people want to see the NHS taken out of public ownership? Certainly not the “heartlands” you described, but they still voted Labour even though it was Labour policy. They voted with their hearts, not their heads. I am sure that a large majority of Tories would not want it either, which is why I say that if Labour went for an anti-”social enterprise” policy and talked about keeping the NHS public, they could easily defeat Cameron.

The problem is if Labour diverted from a plan to privatise the NHS there would not be future jobs for the likes of Byers, Milburn and Hewitt.

Watchman

Your understanding seems to be wrong.

Thatcher’s government was wracked by division and in-fighting that undermined the leadership’s drive to take on the unions. It was only after the falklands, when they were really popular, that they pushed their agenda in full and the party backed it.

And right now you are right that they are keen to be seen putting the national interest first – but when the public seem strongly to think the government isn’t the public interest (ie when government is massively unpopular) – MPs are quick to equate “national interest” with their own self interested outlook.

—

Richard

Not sure what your point is there – you seem to agree with me that Labour won well in its heartlands – which obviously means electoral strengthening requires appealing beyond that core now. So I’m not sure what your post is about.

Don’t get me wrong – a good old rant at nasty tony blair is fine. Just not sure how that fits with the prospects of back bench mps rebelling when their government is unpopular.

@24. margin4error

LOL! I had Tom Watson tweet to me today telling me that I was ranting, so I must be doing something good.

My point is that what I want from Labour – a commitment to the public services, a responsibility from the state for things like education and healthcare provision – are not the principles of New Labour. Cameron is simply heir to Blair in this respect – shrinking the state and handing over services to the private sector (whether that is US corps, or the “third sector”).

My gripe was that the Labour “heartlands” were still voting for this stuff. Take the NHS section from Labour’s manifesto, go to someone in the “heartlands” and quote the policy and then say would you vote for this? You’ll get an emphatic NO. (For example, the pledge to allow you to go private and the NHS pays.) Yet they did. There were two parties at fault here: the Labour party for producing policies that their supporters do not want, and Labour supporters for voting Labour even with those policies.

Hence look at Lib Con’s own assessment of Labour (post 2010 defeat) that it needed to get back to its roots – when clearly the result at every level of analysis shows Labour won strongly in its heartlands and lost heavilly where it relies on centre-ground voters.

That is ONLY if you look at the voters who went with Labour at the last election. But the problem is that your analysis already excludes voters from the heartlands, so when you do your 2010 analysis, the problem is that some centre-ground voters are lost.

The second problem with this analysis is that since Labour lost – it has gotten about 10pts in the polls. None of that number came from Labour moving back to the right, but rather slightly leftwards under Ed Miliband.

It’s not so much that they have no visible leader, as the fact that Labour are the repository of ‘anti-Government’ votes.

Not necessarily – because while Labour was unpopular and people wanted somewhere to go – they still largely avoided the Tories. So it isn’t just ‘anti-government votes’ – but also that sympathy with Labour has always been deeper than for Tories in this country.

Even if Ed Miliband was around, it would make little difference because the media is not interested with them right now. The vote share is going up because bad memories of Labour are slowly being cleansed away.

Not necessarily – because while Labour was unpopular and people wanted somewhere to go – they still largely avoided the Tories.

The Tory poll rating peaked at 52%. I think it’s fair to deduce that a lot of that was anti-Government feeling that failed to translate into actual votes. As for basing too much analysis on YouGov polling 4 and a half years out from the election it might be worth noting that last night’s poll was 40/40/11.

“make the public realise that Labour are the party of the public sector.”

Richard, I think the analysis is spot on except for this bit. Amongst some sections of opinion Labour are seen as the party of the public sector, but this translates as meaning the party of wasteful spending, “non-jobs” and high pay for public sector management.

What labour need to do is position themselves as the party of the ‘national interest’ and support universal public services for all – which is then contrasted with means tested services, postcode lotteries and cuts made by the tories.

Richard

I don’t disagree with your view on what Labour got wrong in that respect – just needed to point out that in terms of winning new voters – the sense that it must get back in tuch with its core seems myopic, just as it would be for Tory MPs to think a shift to the right would restore their fortunes (if they find themselves well down)

But politicians often are myopic.

Sunny

Two things.

1 – Labour didn’t lose a lot of heartland seats in 2005 either – or 2001. The trend since 1997′s massive electoral high has been to lose those around the centre. (with the exception of by-elections, which defy normal trends anyway)

2 – Labour won back a lot of heartland support in 2010. It’s core vote strategy did well at getting labour’s heartland vote out. Just look at an electoral map of East London now – painted red with massively increased majorities on increased turnouts. Those who left but just “stayed away” in 2005 came back and voted Labour in 2010.

3 – Ed Miliband hasn’t become more left wing – not even marginally so. Certainly not compared to Brown who focused heavilly on redistribution and poverty. He’s basically picking low hanging fruit by

a) not being Gordon Brown (worth at least 5% in the polls – indeed Labour recovered to the mid-30s without a leader)
b) being anti-iraq war (nice and easy as he wasn’t in parliament and can pretend he’d have voted against)
c) picking up lib dems who thought lib dems were labour light only to find out they were not. (Simply not saying “I agree with £9k tuition fees” is probably worth 2% in the polls)

Labour has as yet not started on a strategy to win the next election – it is effectively just cobbling together the wider coalition of support that Tony Blair started cobbling together in 1994.

31

“Labour has as yet not started on a strategy to win the next election – it is effectively just cobbling together the wider coalition of support that Tony Blair started cobbling together in 1994.”

I think M4E is right on the money with this. A lot of people are waiting to see what happens within Labour over the next year or two. It would be a huge let down if all they do is try and cobble together a New Labour Lite, or pedal themselves as the Not-Coalition Party… basically the same policies but with a more touchy-feely presentation.

I’ve made no secret that I’m not convinced the current leadership is up to the job, or that the cleansing Sunny talks about is sincere, or even if it is whether it will be the “deep clean” required.

What I don’t see is any real narrative building up of what Labour would do that is different; the USP that differentiates them both from the policies of the coalition, and from the authoritarian, deeply regressive policies espoused under New Labour. How do they convince people that they can be a radical, progressive force which supports public services for all whilst dealing with the economic problems we face.

There is an appetite out there for a position which opposes tuition fees, the Big Society, dismantling the NHS, a continuing light touch on the financial sector and regulation…. I just don’t hear the Labour front bench responding to it.

Galen

Ironically – and this may not prove popular if I say it – but it may be Labour will head towards the earliest phase of “New Labour” and it will work quite well for you.

At the early phase NEw Labour was more inclined towards liberty – and even moved towards decriminalisation of dope.

Of course with the Lib Dems filling that ground there was little vote to be had on that turf – so the party went to look at other directions to hold a share of the centre grounds.

With the Lib Dems in chaos – that might be an option again.