The Lib Dem surge is BAD for Labour
July 22nd, 2004
scotlibdems
- After our Lib Dem BUY CALL - now SELL LABOUR
- Labour’s poll lead over the Lib Dems has collapsed by more than 25% compared with what it was at this stage before the last election. In July 2000 Mori had Labour at 49% to the Lib Dems 12%. At the election in 2001 Labour dropped 7% and the Lib Dems rose 7%. The idea that Labour will recover by the time of the General Election is not backed up by what’s happened before - in fact the reverse is true.
- Labour is certain to lose 10 seats in the Scottish boundary changes that reduce the total of MPs from 659 to 646. Why the spreads are continuing to accept bets without factoring this in is amazing. This factor alone is worth a SELL Labour bet.
- The Lib Dems will do far better than the national swings to win 20+ Labour seats. Being an incumbent Government and having to deal with the rising Lib Dems is a new experience for Labour, and so far they’ve shown themselves to be pretty inept.
- The anti-Tory tactical voting of the past two elections will be minimal. A main reason that Labour got its mammoth majority in 2001 was because mostly Lib dems switched in key seats to produce an estimated 30 extra Labour MPs. That’s not going to happen on anything like the same scale again, if at all, and we have calculated an unwind factor of 13 seats from Labour to the Tories.
- The emergence of anti-Labour tactical voting. This happened in Brent East, Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill and is likely to appear at the General Election, possibly causing the loss a critical seats.
- The pollsters will, as in every election from 1992 onwards, have a marked pro-Labour bias. The average has been 6.5% - we are working on 4%. There is no sign that this has changed and to compensate have cut 2% of the Labour figure in the “poll of polls” and added 2% to the Tories.
Five weeks ago we advised that backing Charles Kennedy’s Lib Dems for 58 seats or more on the spread markets was a good value bet. Those who took the advice could now get out at a profit of four times their unit stake. But don’t - even with the buy price rising last night to 66 we believe that this is still value for money.
-
Now another big opportunity has emerged on the spread markets - SELLING LABOUR. In spite of the drubbing the party got in last week’s by-elections the spread price on Labour has surged to such a point where there’s now real value in selling at 346 seats.
With this type of bet you win your unit stake multiplied by the number of seats that Labour is short of 346. So if they got 316 and you had £10 a unit on your winnings would be £300. On the other hand if Labour got 366 you would lose twenty times your unit stake.
The latest prices for Labour on the spread-betting markets are over-valued and offer a good opportunity for punters wanting to bet against them. These are last night’s figures with comparisons from last week before the by-elections:-
LAB 346-354 (+14 ): CON 212-220 (-27): 62-66 (+6)
What’s not taken into account is the reduced sized House of Commons and the spreads seem to assume that the rise of the Lib Dems - up to 25% in this week’s ICM poll - will have almost no impact. The theory is that the party will just build up votes that it cannot convert into MPs. We disagree and our view of the outcome is based on the following factors:-
Applying these factors to Martin Baxter’s current “poll of polls” we get the following House of Commons:-
LAB 295: CON 237: LIBD 82: OTH 32
-
Thus our projection has Labour at 51 seats less than the current spread sell price. We think that this is a good value bet.
In the Commons the party Labour would be 28 seats short of an overall majority. The combined Lib Dem and Tory total of MPs would not be enough for a majority. Michael Howard’s Tories would, just, be the biggest party in England.
2 pm UPDATE - A by-election in the town that elected H’Angus the Monkey as mayor?
bbc
If Peter Mandelson is appointed an EU Commissioner this morning then there will be a by-election at his seat in Hartlepool. At the 2001 election this was the result:-
LAB 22,506 (59.15%): CON 7,935 (20.85%): LIB 5,717 (15.02%): OTH 1,893 (4.97%)
Hartlepool voters were last in the news two years ago when they rejected Labour and elected local football team mascot, Stuart Drummond, known as H’Angus the Monkey, to the post of Mayor after securing 60% of the vote.
NEW MARKET - MANDY TO BE A NON-STAYER FOR THE THIRD TIME?
Meanwhile, following his nomination by Tony Blair, bookmakers William Hill are offering odds of 3/1 that Peter Mandelson fails to see out his full term as Britain’s EU Commissioner. Surely this won’t happen a third time? This is a great bet for William Hill and a bad one for punters. You have no idea when you will get paid - it could go on for years - and meantime you are locking up your money with the bookmaker.
MessageSpace Advertising
I think, in general, you are right, Mike: that the Lib Dems are a BUY, and that Labour is a SELL. But I think the Tories are also a SELL.
In allowing for an over-estimate of support for Labour, you assign the adjusted votes to the Conservatives. However, as Charles Kennedy observed the other day, we now have a three-party system. If you transfer the 2% of support from Labour, not to the Tories, but to the Lib Dems (after all, the Tories hardly exist in many parts of the country), and then apply those figures to Martin´s Battlemap, you have the following seats:
Lab 326
Con 201
Lib Dem 88
This makes a very interesting comparison with the current spread-betting seats.
However, you have to recognise that Martin calculates these figures on the basis of establishing the Tory and Labour seats, allowing for a certain number of \”Others\” and giving the remnant to the Lib Dems. At the moment, his calculations allow for 49 \”Others\”, up from the current 28. Which precisely are these 21 extra \”Other\” seats to be?
There is no room for expansion in Northern Ireland (they already have all 18 seats), the Scottish Nationalists seem to be a spent force and in any case Martin´s generous calculation is based on a very old opinion poll (2003), when they were doing relatively well. So the extra 21 seats are based on the supposition that votes for UKIP, the BNP, Respect and Greens are interchangeable. I am not convinced.
This means that, if there are 21 extra seats going unplaced, they have to be assigned (on Martin´s own principles) to the Lib Dems.
This then gives the following distribution:
Lab 326
Con 201
Lib Dem 109
Others 28
This makes the current Lib Dem spread betting position even more attractive.
Or have I gone wrong somewhere with my analysis?
Mike, but if you use the ICM poll comparison July 2000 v July 2004, you only find a net swing from Labour to Conservative of 1% (thats right, ONE percent).
Lab 35 (42)
Con 30 (35)
LD 25 (17)
Which would imply very few Labour marginals falling to the Conservatives.
My own judgement is that I find very hard to believe that if an election were to be held now the Conservatives would win 70/75 Labour marginals. That would mean they would need a 7.5% swing in Labour-held marginals.
Sorry, my mistake - make that a 6% swing in Labour-held marginals. A bit easier, but still historically a big swing (the sort that only happens once a decade or so). Can the Conservatives in their current state generate that sort of momentum?
John & Villan - I agree that my Tory total is the flakiest and I would not bet on them on them either way. Labour are going to be right down on the 42% of 2001 and this causes changes in LAB-CON marginals even with the Tory vote staying within 0ne or two percent of last time. There\’s also a lot of cushion through the unwind of tactical voting where I\’ve assumed just 13 seats and it could be many more - upto 30. My view is that Lib Dems are much less likely to be convinced by the tactical argument to support a Labour Government that has lost the trust of large parts of the electorate. Labour supporters will continue to vote tactically where the Lib Dems hold the seat or are the main challengers. On the other side there will be much more anti-Labour tactical voting in Lib Dem target seats where the squeeze message to soft Tories will be very strong.
My overall point is that the spread total for the Lib Dems is too low and is too high for Labour.
Don\’t agree - I\’d buy Labour at 350 and definitely sell the Tories at 220. Even with the reduction of Scottish seats, Labour have to lose the best part of 60 seats to sink below 350. The will undoubtedly come back from their poll ratings now and with the Lib Dems picking up something has to give - and that\’s the Tories. Kellner had an interesting prediction based on the most recent YouGov poll - can\’t remember the figures exactly, but they were along the lines of Lab 375, Tories 180, Lib Dems 75. I tend to agree - I just can\’t see the Tories at the moment doing well enough to pick up anything like 60 seats from Labour.
Out of interest, Labour\’s 60th most marginal seat is Vale of Glamorgan - does anyone really believe the Tories are doing well enough to pick up seats in South Wales?
Where exactly are these LibDem/Labour marginals?
Jon, Labour/Lib Dem marginals are definitely Aberdeen South, Edinburgh South (new boundaries), Birmingham Yardley, Cardiff Central, Oldham East and Rochdale. Seats where they have a good chance, based on local election success and big swings in 2001, include Islington South, Hornsey & Wood Green, Hampstead, Blaydon, Manchester Withington. They may pick up a seat or two in Liverpool and Newcastle if they can translate local success to Parliamentary level.
Dan, Kellner predicted vote shares of Lab 36%, Con 33%, Lib Dem 22%. I can\’t see Labour getting an overall majority of 99 on the back of a 36% share. I assume Kellner is still factoring in the same level of anti-Conservative tactical voting as before, and assuming that there will be no anti-Labour tactical voting.
WRT Hartlepool, I see that UKIP came second there on June 10th. Add in Neil Herron\’s vote and the eurosceptics took 26% to 32% for Labour. If a high-profile candidate runs for UKIP, I wouldn\’t rule out their chances of taking the seat in a by-election, particularly as Mandleson is departing for Brussels, and UKIP will be campaigning against the North East Assembly. If the Mayor runs, I wouldn\’t rule out his chances either.
With Hartlepool, I cannot really see June 10th as being anything other than a high-water mark for UKIP (albeit an impressive one) and they will probably need more than the 26% they got to win. They will be hit by the fact it isn\’t a European election, their relative lack of personnel for a setpiece by election battle (they ran a very media savvy Euro elections and are well resourced but they do not really have many activists in comparison with others), Tory squeeze messages, and the couple of recent scandals over alleged housing benefit fraud and sexism. I can see them getting a decent vote (like Respect recently) but no more than that. I have to think it looks like another Lib Dem/Labour showdown, possibly with Labour looking more likely due to decent council results there recently. I also hear that the monkey mayor has lost some of his appeal now that he actually has to run the place, and he also has the problem of running against the big by election juggernauts.
Hi Sean - I think Kellner\’s overall voting share figures are about right and he called it as a Labour majority of 99 or so. I think you\’re right to identify the impact of pro/anti Tory tactical voting - but I\’m not convinced (at present) that the Tories will see a big reduction in anti-Tory tactical voting by Labour/Lib Dems (at least while they are reminded of the Major years with Howard as leader). But it could change if people get more disilliusioned with Labour.
I\’d also add to the Labour/Lib Dem target list - Bristol West, Cambridge, Dunbartonshire East plus a number of seats where they are currently in third but within touching distance of second - Falmouth and Camborne, Colne Valley, Watford etc.
As for Hartlepool as you say it could be very interesting - but I\’d put money on the Lib Dems - have you seen their website?
I agree with your list of LibDem targets… but it isn\’t long enough to get near 100. I would add Falmouth, Durham,
Watford, and the university seats Cambridge and Oxford East, Bristol West to that lot but still need to find quite a few more.
It\’s amazing how many of the Lib dem targets are university seats (large student & academic poulations) - Manchester Withington, Cardiff Central, Cambridge, Durham, Bristol West, Liverpoool Wavertree, Birmingham Yardley - and although the fees issue is not making the headlines it is still very real. Add that to the war and there\’s a powerful combination that makes the Lib dems very attractive.
The scale of tactical voting and which party is the loser will be critical. In both circumstances the
Lib Dems benefit. The Tories also benefit if Lib Dems stay with their party rather than vote tactically.
I should have added Bristol West, Cambridge, Colne Valley (which they\’ve held in the past) to my list; and yes, I\’d say they\’re definitely in with a chance in Watford, on the back of very strong local election results. In Falmouth, I think their chance has passed them by, and their pro-European stance would hurt their chances (UKIP polled massively in Cornwall).
I certainly regard Kellner\’s prediction for vote share as being plausible. I just don\’t see Labour winning a 99 majority on a 36% share and a 3% lead. They\’d definitely be the largest party, by some margin, but not to that extent.
The point about University seats is interesting. They mainly used to pretty safely Conservative, and then swung heavily away from the Conservatives in the 1980s. They\’re now swinging away from Labour for the same reason - because the intelligentsia are well to the Left of the government.
If the Hartepool by-election is held on the same day as the referendum for the North East Assembly, then UKIP will have benefitted from loads of coverage from the latter campaign. They would be fools to pass up this opportunity.
WRT tactical voting, it\’s notable just how far Labour have fallen behind the Tories in a number of North London marginal seats, where they did so well in 1997 and 2001.
In the London Assembly election, the Tories took 40% (+8% for UKIP) in the wards making up Enfield Southgate, compared to 22% for Labour. In Enfield North the Tories took 35% (+14% for UKIP) to 27% for Labour. In Brent North, they took 41% to 29% for Labour. In terms of the Conservative margin over Labour, these results are consistent with the local elections of 2002, and suggest to me that these seats are reverting to type.
Interesting points about North London - but would you bet against Stephen Twigg?
How\’s this for a theory? UKIP\’s \’high profile\’ candidate for the Hartlepool by-election is none other than the monkey Mayor? Might explain UKIPs relatively good showing in Hartlepool\’s local elections where they polled 17% across the constituency (apparently).
There\’s a report on the BBC that Robert Kilroy-Silk is \”under pressure\” to stand in Hartlepool. If he does, he would IMO, be the favourite to win the seat. Hartlepool had (a) a big UKIP/Neil Herron vote in the Euros (b) the North East referendum (c) a devastated fishing industry (d) Mandleson going off to Brussels, add to which (e) Kilroy-Silk\’s large personal following, as demonstrated in the East Midlands region, and (f) there is no big Muslim electorate offended by Iraq.
But would he wear the monkey suit?
I agree that RKS would be a strong candidate - but would he risk it? There\’s a huge difference between fighting a media focussed regional list campaign and the \’hand to hand\’ combat of a Parly by-election. What if he doesn\’t quite make it? It stops the UKIP momentum in its tracks and deflates his massive ego. It would also expose him to some searching scrutiny about his abode and lifestyle. My view is that the Noble Lord Rennard doesn\’t say the Lib Dems will win unless he is certain - and he would have factored in a possible RKS candidature.
As for the monkey suit - I think if the Mayor did stand he\’d lose whatever gimmicks he tries.
Sean you mention about holding the by-election on the same day as the referendum for the North East Assembly, but as Prescott keeps going on about, this is to be all postal votes, so surely couldn\’t be practical.
Well, he\’s used to glad-handing the public. And if he can campaign successfully in somewhere as rough as Knowsley, I\’m sure he can do it in Hartlepool.
I\’d do it like a shot if I was him. Even if he doesn\’t win, he\’s sure of a big vote, and he\’s still got his MEP\’s salary to fall back on.
If you are still looking for interesting Lab-LibDem contests at the next election, what
about adding Birmingham Hodge Hill, Birmingham Perry Barr, Leeds NW and Inverness?
But apart from vulnerable Labour-held seats, surely the collapse of the Labour vote also means that Labour voters are more likely to switch in Tory-LibDem marginals, starting with Taunton and the Isle of Wight?
Artesea, I\’m only going by reports I\’ve read. I can\’t see why, in principle, a postal ballot can\’t be used for the by-election. Hartlepool voted by post for the recent local and Euro elections.
The unremarked upon feature of Leic. south was the drop in Labour votes from 22,958 to 8,620 (Tories went from 9,715 to 5796 and LDs from 7243 up to 10,274. Respect picked up 3,724 but even if some of those return I am not sure that anyone realises what a mess the Labour party is in. It has lost its left wing, and many middle of the road workers because of the war and general disappointment with life
You may be right ,John, but surely, the Labour vote in places like Taunton and IOW is so low already that it\’s the hard core, who\’ll vote Labour come what may.
I think under the Parliament Acts that all Parly elections must be held by secret ballots - I think it would require primary legislation to make the HArtlepool by-election all postal.
I can\’t also imagine Labour wanting to hold on that long - isn\’t the referendum scheduled for October? I\’d guess they\’ll want a three week campaign like Hodge Hill and Leicester - but they might have to wait until early Sept to avoid the peak holiday season.
There are reasonably large Labour votes in both IOW and Taunton (15%+) as well as quite a few others. There are several outside possibilities for the Lib Dems where the Labour vote is currently up above 20% (e.g. Woking, Bridgewater, South Norfolk). I would have thought as a very rough rule of thumb it is only when you get to 10% that you are trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Doesn\’t really affect the sell Labour call at the top of all this chat but it does go to support Dan\’s sell Tory point somewhere above.
Having said that, just having a quick look through the Lib Dem gains as I remember them last time, the squeezes (Ludlow, North Norfolk, Teignbridge, Guildford, Cheadle) all took Labour down to to a remarkably close-packed group around 12.5-14.5%. This is quite interesting in terms of calculating who might be the victim of a squeeze next time because the Labour vote went from very different levels (well over 20% in Ludlow and Norfolk, just under 20% in Teignbridge and Guildford and around 15% in Cheadle) down to very similar levels. Could be a useful tool in working out just what\’s most vulnerable to a squeeze. Unfortunately it\’s a pattern but not seemingly a rule - there was virtually no squeeze in another gain (Mid Dorset - stayed around 16%) and a harder squeeze in Orpington (down to 10% from 17%) where the LDs just missed out.
Back to Hartlepool, I see UKIP came within c.40 votes of winning two council seats on June 10th, and won 4,500 votes in the council elections, out of 26,000. They may have a fair number of local activists.
what if they call the date of the elections for the uni holidays? That could make a significant impact!
they\’ll go for another snap election. the regional refferendum isn\’t till novemeber 4 so they just won\’t allow a 4 month campaign. the only reason the north east is voting (yorks and the north est have been cancelled) is because they will actually win it. its probabley the only region in the country that actually wants an assembley so i don\’t see this being the huge issue for UKIP that it might seem to be. also don\’t forget that in a by election you really need foot soldiers on the ground which means a lib dem/labour fight. the percentages at the last election for the 3 big parties are remarkabley similar to brent, birmingham and leicester. although hartlepool isn\’t as centrally placed as birmingham/leicester if the lib dems can concentrate all there national resources on a single seat they surely must be the favourites. if labour hesitate and give them a crucail few extra weeks to build up momentum I\’d make them a cert.
Simon, I don\’t think the Uni vote will be significant in Hartlepool.
David, much depends on whether people view this by-election as a bit of a joke, in the same way as they treated the Euros . If they do, there\’s no iron law that says they have to vote Lib Dem (although they might). UKIP seem to have a reasonable local activist base, a base vote of 4,000+, and with a big-name candidate could well take the seat.
I see the logic of Labour going for a short campaign, although the vote presumably can\’t take place until Parliament returns in September. However, all the reports I read suggested it would be on the same day as the North East referendum.
What does the election of the monkey as mayor with 60% of the vote two years ago say about the Hartlepool electorate? If they don\’t think something\’s serious then enough of them will back a \”fad\” candidate. This must be good news for Kilroy-Silk
I think the writ for the by-election has to be moved in parliament which won\’t be sitting for quite a while. A long
campaign is guaranteed.
Indeed, according to the Sunday papers, the original plan was for the by-election writ to be moved in the Commons sometime during the week (either in Hartlepool, or in Geoff Hoon\’s constituency if he went to Brussels in Mandelson\’s place).
But because Mandleson decided to sleep on the decision Thursday night, and Parliament had risen for the summer, they will have to wait until September to move the writ, unless Mandleson is made a peer, in which case the Speaker, Michael Martin, can issue the writ during the recess (they did this in 1999 when George Robinson went to NATO, in order not to give the SNP too much time to get a major bandwagon going).
Coming in late on this, but another possible gain for the Lib Dems from Labour on a good swing at the next election is Swansea West. LDs came first there in the recent local elections, it\’s a university seat (the University and most students are in the seat), there\’s a decent sized Tory and Plaid vote to squeeze and Labour might have a new candidate as Alan Williams is almost 80.
Here\’s an interesting market, though I doubt any bookie would open it - which party will get the most 2nd place finishes at the next election? While there are a lot of seats out of reach this time for the LDs, a good performance helps them to leapfrog the Tories in Labour seats (and vice-versa) to make them the main challengers in a number of seats next time around.
I think there is a procedure for a by-election to be called during Parly recess. I believe a notice can be placed in the London Gazette (or similar) - I may be completely wrong but I do remember September by-elections - wasn\’t Eastbourne called for the week of the Tory conference?
people are right and I was wrong about the snap elections. because parliment isn\’t sitting its more complicated to call a by election although far from impossible. the difficulty is does any party really want a by election campign in august? if the labour party are really awkward they\’ll call it for the middle of the lib dem conference.
aren\’t we all getting abit giddy? doesn\’t anyone remember the 80\’s when the alliance (as then was) won by elections all the time. they got huge jolts in the polls as well. I\’m not saying the lib dems won\’t make seat gains from both parties. it just doesn\’t happen on uniform national swings. you need decent candidates, a local governement base, money targeted activists and a good tactical message.
Fair point David. I do remember a Gallup poll straight after the Brecon by-election in 1985, giving 40% Alliance, 34% Labour, and 24% Conservative.
Well said Leeds David - this is clearly a post Leicester blip in the polls. I expect things to calm down over the summer when politics is off people\’s radar. But another potential by-election gain in the late summer/early Autumn will stoke up the Lib Dems poll ratings again. But unless soemthing seismic happens in the conference season - mass defections - leadership battles etc - then it will all die down by the new year. Then the squeeze will really be on the Lib Dems as voter\’s minds crystalise over the general election and who can form a government. It remimds me of the Alliances position in 1987 when they consistently polled in the twenties in the pre-election period, but got squeezed from both sides in the campaign proper.
Having said this - I fully expect the Lib Dems to keep polling at or above 20% for this period and to make modest gains at both other parties expense. But unless Labour are stupid enough to keep holding regular winnable by-elections to keep the Lib Dems publicity going then you cannot seriously expect them to poll anything like 28% come the main event next year (unless there are seismic shifts in the other two parties).
Polls are also being distorted by the big votes being registered for UKIP (6-9%) following the Euro election. Of course, if UKIP win the Hartlepool by-election, they\’ll probably get another bounce in the polls, but I\’d be amazed if they poll anything like that at a general election.
The Lib Dems also have the advntage that they really have not had the same level of scrutiny as the other two parties. Their policies - and I speak as a former member, and am still an inactive suppoter - tend to the contradictory at times. Arguments over getting rid of the Queen or legalising cannabis don\’t tend to ring so well with the population at large as with activists at conference time.
That said; next year is perhaps the Lib Dem\’s best opportunity for a generation. They benefit from (a) disillusioned Labour voters - who will be likely apathetic, if not actively opposed to the government, (b) an uninspiring Conservative leader with no clear message (what exactly do I get from Mr Howard except, perhaps, for some bizarre opportunism), and (c) their opposition to the Iraq war. Were it not for the leadership (if I can call it that) of Charles Kennedy, then I would look forward with great optimism to next year\’s general election.
Sean,
What happens if the UKIP win Hartlepool? What happens if they are recording 10% in the polls heading towards the election. How many Conservative voters - resigned to their party losing anyway - decide to cast an anti-EU vote instead, reckoning to sway Tony? Could UKIP top 5% in the GE, if people assume the Tories will lose anyway?
Even if UKIP won Harlepool (which I can\’t really see them doing even with RKS as candidate) I don\’t think they\’d poll anything like 5 or 10% in General Election for exactly the same reasons as the Lib Dems, from a much stronger base, will get squeezed - they are not a credible alternative government and their less sensible policies will be under intense scrutiny which will expose their contradictions (and in UKIP\’s case rather unsavoury activists and their views).
People have to remember - even on a low turn-out - general elections really matter - that\’s why is so difficult for \’minor\’ parties to make progress.
If UKIP does win 5%, which I doubt, I should think it\’s bad news for the Conservatives. However, if they can repeat the sort of vote they got in Devon and Cornwall on June 10th (eg 36% in Torridge & West Devon), then it\’s bad news for the Liberal Democrats.
UKIP\’s best bet IMO is to target a small number of constituencies, rather than to field 450 candidates as they did in 2001.
Don\’t look at the micro-movements - concentrate on the big picture. The next election result is not going to be 30-28-28; if the election had happened over the weekend when we polled the result wouldn\’t have been 30-28-28. People are by and large aware of the context in which they\’re being asked. The most telling number in the poll - as in all recent polls - was the sum of \’others\’. They were 6.7% in 2001. Lately they have been in the range of 12-16%. It is highly unlikely they will be anywhere near that when the issue is the immediate and real one of who people want to govern them (with however many caveats they may have about each of the main parties). The story of politics now is this measure (and that unknowable part of the swelling of the Lib Dem share which is a function of the same thing) of how many people BOTH want to vote against the government of the day AND refuse to let the main opposition party be the object of their protest. It is true that the headline numbers of the polls are as bad or worse for Labour than for the Tories but historical context surely puts that in a different context: it has long been the pattern in British politics for governments to fall far behind in mid-term polls (and to reach a stage where they are incapable of defending any seat at all in a by-election) and then to win. The defining feature of our current politics is that the Tory Party isn\’t seen even as something that people can back even in a mid-term poll - let alone a by-election! The most telling Populus poll question (which I hadn\’t expected to be remotely as revealing when drafting it) shows (from memory - forgive me if this isn\’t quite right) that roughly three quarters of voters are \’disappointed in the Labour government overrall\’ but that roughly two-thirds nonetheless would rather keep this government than have a Tory one. S That political mood is not one in which the Tories are going to gain many (if any) seats. I bet you know loads of people who bitterly grumble about the government. But I also bet you don\’t know anyone who has positively switched back to the Tories. The story of the Parliament is big swing from Labour to Lib Dem and tiny swing from Labour to Tory. For as long as we need to add in a net swing g from Tory to UKIP the bottom line effect is unavoidable. I don\’t bet on seats but if I did I\’d stay away from Lib Dems (just too unpredictable with multi-swing factors) and look at Labour & Tories. It is said that Philip Gould - who knows at least as much as anyone else about the way people in this country think about politics - has privately briefed the Cabinet that Labour are on course (other things being equal) for another majority of over 100. Everything I see says he\’s probably right - which must make current odds very appetising for the brave.
Labour\’s performance in actual elections over the past 18 months has been almost as poor as that of John Major\’s government, and generally worse than that of Margaret Thatcher\’s government in mid-term. So, I think it would be a brave man who who was willing to bet on a three-figure Labour majority at the next election.