Labour’s in trouble as well [Next planned update - Friday]
August 4th, 2004
-
Blair needs a clear poll lead to avoid a hung Parliament
The fact that only the Guardian seems to be reporting that all is not well with Labour does not mean that it’s not in electoral trouble. Support down by a quarter since the General Election; membership at a 70 year low having lost almost half of those that were there when Tony Blair came to power in 1997; a collapse in the popularity of the Prime Minister, and an article like this one by former minster, Peter Kilfoyle, in the Guardian on Monday on the disappearance of the Labour activist.
-
For the party to be losing its activist base could be highly dangerous. Labour’s always found it harder than the other main parties to get its vote out and we might have to consider applying a discount when assessing its poll ratings.
This week’s Populus Poll in the Times has Labour down at 32% - the same as the Tories who’ve put on 4% in a week and a half. The Lib Dems are back at their pre-Leicester South 24%. Amazingly the politicians (including the Tories), the media and political punters cling onto the belief that the figures mean that Labour will win a majority. They go to Martin Baxter’s famous “seat calculator” and get the following seat figures from the polling data.
LAB 331 seats (32%) CON 208 seats (32%) LIBD 76 seats (24%)
-
We believe that this is giving a false picture and will go on giving it right until the election day.
The Baxter process works out an average of the latest polling data and then does a computation for each of the 646 seats based solely on what happened last time. It does not take account of special factors which can produce “Non-Baxter change seats“. If we can identify and quanitfy these there’ll be money to be made on a range of betting markets. SELL Labour at 346 in the spread markets and BUY the Lib Dems at 68. We think the Baxter prediction will be out as a result of three factors
We think that the anti-Tory tactical voting that saw Labour supporters voting Lib Dem will continue. But we are much less certain that Lib Dems will carry on switching their vote to Labour in the pattern that saw the the Tories lose 25-40 seats at the last two elections. With the war, issues like tuition fees and the decline in trust in Blair many of these voters will return to their own party which is itself moving forward?
Thus the Tories could regain St. Albans WITHOUT increasing their vote. There the Baxter calculation puts the Tories 1.4% behind. In 1997 and 2001 many times that number Lib Dems voted tactically for Labour. It does not require that many to stay loyal and a Non-Baxter gain occurs. The same factor applies in several Hertfordshire seats including Welwyn Hatfield which is included as a gain by Martin Baxter and so not a Non-Baxter seat.
Applying the latest Baxter calculation to Cambridge , another category of constituency, Labour’s 20% lead in 2001 becomes a 5% lead over the Lib Dems. There are enough Tories to squeeze for a further Non-Baxter Gain
The Labour poll decline of about a quarter and the Lib Dem increase by about a third opens up many new target possibilities. We are in uncharted territory because Labour hasn’t been down at these low levels in the polls for a generation. What’s confusing is that the media focus has been almost solely on the inability of the Tories to benefit and there’s an irrational assumption that the electoral system will somehow see Labour home. But if Labour lost 20 seats to the Tories on the tactical vote unwind and 25 to special Lib Dem targeting then the Baxter projection from yesterday’s poll would look like this.
LAB 286: CON 228: LIBD 101
Given that this is based on the two main parties getting the same number of votes Labour would still be 58 seats ahead but would be 37 MPs short of a majority. That’s a far cry from the current spread ranges of:-
LAB 346-354: CON 210-218: LIBD 64-68
We believe that almost everybody is reading this wrongly and we are reading it right. With Non-Baxter seat losses to contend with and a diminishing activist base Labour needs a big poll lead to be secure a Commons majority at 324 seats or more. At the moment it’s not got one.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
\”But if Labour lost 20 seats to the Tories on the tactical vote unwind and 25 to special Lib Dem targeting\”
25 seats?! Because of \”special\” targeting? How special can targeting be, in order to gain half as many seats again as you already hold in addition to another 25 seats gained through national swing? It\’s not as if the LDs haven\’t been furiously targeting seats for the past 20 years…. what\’s different about this time? It\’s about time you renamed this site \”politicaloptimism.com\”.
The \’media assumption\’ is surely simply that Labour will make up ground between now and the general election, and a fair assumption this seems to be, given past precednts. The polls may be showing Labour and the Conservatives level pegging at the moment, but we are now effectively still in the mid-term period. After a general election cmapaign to focus people\’s minds, how likely is it that this will still be the case? And how likely is it that the government would even consider calling an election if they were only at level pegging with the Tories. Now, Labour may well lose seats, but how likely is it that these poll numbers will hold true in a year from now? For this reason, the current spread ranges seem realistic.
What precedents are there for Labour recovering in the year before an election when they\’ve been in power? A touch in 1970 perhaps but not much else. Labour polls ratings almost always show huge drops in the year before a General Election. Why should it be different now? And don\’t underestimate the dramatic effect of the membership drop and loss of councillors. Elections at the margin are won on the ground - identifying and getting your supporters out to vote. You need committed and enthusiastic volunteers.
The difference between now and previous elections is that the Lib Dems are targeting Labour which they\’ve never really been able to do before.
You should also check this from the front page of the Guradian yesterday…
\”Despite claims that last month\’s byelections were a \”score-draw\”, with the Liberal Democrats taking Leicester South and Labour holding Birmingham Hodge Hill with a 460 majority, some senior party strategists saw them as among the worst byelection results ever for Labour.
They point out that they clung on to the Birmingham seat only because George Galloway\’s Respect party secured some of the anti-war vote from the Lib Dems.
Being \”saved\” by Mr Galloway is hardly seen as a ringing endorsement of the party.
The pessimists at the top of the party fear that it is now stuck on a share of the vote of around 32-34 points - a few points ahead of the Tories.The unanswered question is whether this represents a mid- term trough or a settled view of the government…\”
The 2000 - 2001 precedent, which as it was only 3 years ago and involved the Blair government, seems more relevant than 1970. Of course Labour are in trouble, but to say that they will not recover any of their support at all between now and the election is pushing it, in my opinion.
It is optimistic to think the LibDems can easily pick-up 25-30 seats. But it is going to be much easier for the LibDems to squeeze hardcore Labour voters than previously. Many traditional (read hardcore) Labour voters are the ones who are most angry about the war; their willingness to switch to Respect or the LibDems may well push a few seats the Lib Dem way.
By the way, I have created an Excel spreadsheet that does a \”universal national swing\” like Baxter\’s calculator. The one advantage it has is that - being Excel - you get a chance to play with underlying assumptions.
T Adams - what is the 2000-2001 precedent you refer to?
Labour recovered between Summer 2000 and the election of the following year. They were behind/level with the tories in the polls for a few months. The situation was different of course as that Labour dip was short-lived, but this is a good a precedent as there is. Is this not a valid comarison?
I don\’t think so - it was a blip caused by the fuel crisis. And subject to the possibility that pollsters have changed their methods in the Tories favour since then, their polling ratings were almost all at the same level or above what they secured in the General Election.
The Labour dip in September 2000 was caused by the petrol crisis when the Tories went into the lead in one or two surveys. In August Mori had Lab 51: CON 29: LIB 15. In September 2000 it went to LAB 37: CON 35: LIB 21.
Two weeks before the election in 2001 Mori had LAB 55: CON 30: LIBD 11. The actual vote was CON 32.7 LAB 42.1 LIb 18.8
So on this Labour slumped 13% in the final fortnight; the Tories went up 2.7% and the LD went up 7.8%.
I hope you don\’t rely too much on Mori, Mike. ICM can make your point, but do so slightly more credibly
The URL for the ICM poll history chart isn\’t working anymore and you have to go into each month\’s screen. Have you got a better link Alex
But this idea that Labour will not recover at all between now and the election because Labour governments \’don\’t pick up support in the run up to an election\’ - where are the precedents for that? If we\’re honest, the current situation is without direct precedents - Labour have never had two successive terms, Labour have never moved so far to the right, the Tories have not had so few seats for nearly a century. 2000-2001 is the closest thing we have to a precedent, that\’s why I mentioned it.
The argument of lack of precedents for Labour in mid-term can cut both ways. Polls still show that most people consider Labour to be the most competent party to form the next government. Of course, low Labour turnout and declining numbers of Labour activists will make a difference. But Labour also have a good chance of making up at least some of the ground they have lost recently. A General Election will focus people\’s minds on who they actually want in government.
Mike - if you dig around on MORI\’s site they also have a list of polls which includes polls from from all the traditional pollsters.
This is it. (From the poll archive section)
I think what this article does it identify where the soft sides in the current markets are i.e. the side where
expectation and reality could be most different… and that\’s the game for speculator everywhere.
Not sure that the LibDem targeting overkill methods can really be extended to over 100 seats. I don\’t think the resources
exist to do that. However it could mean a maturing of that party from a party of protest fighting 50 by-elections to a party of government fighting them all a national policy base. There are certainly some senior LibDems who are working to make it more electable in this way…
The fall in Labours share (approx 4 or 5 points in favour of the LibDems) during the campaign in 2001 could be explained simply by Labour voters remembering that they live a seat where Labour have no chance and switching to the LibDems. I dont know whether the new methodogy of the pollsters automatically adjusts now for this. They should do because it happens every time. Its often a very last-minuute decision - literally a question of one family member reminding the others on the way to the polling station that \”there is no point in voting Labour\”.
Top tip - buy Tories on the spread and sell Labour. Aim to close the bets during the 4 week election campaign when various opinion polls will cause incredible uncertaity at the traders desks and take advantage. Uncertainty = High Volatility. Do not wait for the result of the election.
Good advice Tom - there are so many uncertain factors & the market\’s current strong Labour view offers value and not much downside risk. Even if we are totally wrong Labour\’s not going to get many more seats than 346 and there should be a chance to trade your way out.
Today has been the busiest day ever on the site and the number of unique visitors looks set to be more than double our last \”high\” in a 24 hour period which was during last month\’s by-elections.
I think the systemic error in your analysis is that you assume people will vote according to the party shares in the polls, and I just don\’t believe that will happen. All the evidence from non-voting intention research data is that, however grumpy many voters are towards the government (which they are), most would still much rather stick with this government than have a Tory one, and that factor counts at general elections; voters understand the context in which they are being asked the polling question - there isn\’t a general election tomorrow.
Good piece Mike. Whether or not the LDs break through big time I have no doubt that their supporters will not vote Labour in any circumstances and there will not be anti Tory tactical moves.
So sell Labour must be the call and I have pressed up on the fixed odds spreads with bet365 - 2/1 335 and under.
That is true - however what is also true is that at least 20% of voters will vote for a party other than the main two. Increasingly, as a three party system has tentatively begun to emerge, we have seen a pattern at General Elections where the question being answered by the electorate is not \”Which of Tory or Labour would you prefer as the Government?\”, but rather \”which of (usually from a choice of two of) the three main parties would you prefer to represent your constituency?\” - as evidenced by the rise of tactical voting.
Now we may disagree with Mike\’s claims about what the Lib Dems can achieve on limited resources - but that is the only main objection, limited resources. People will recognise that a vote for the LibDems is NOT a vote for a Tory Government (technical nuances about Tories winning seats due to a transfer of votes from Lab to Lib notwithstanding) and neither is it a vote for a Labour Govt. It may be a vote for a hung Parliament but then I wouldn\’t be surprised if further research showed this as a potentially popular outcome. The only serious barrier to somebody who is attracted to the LibDems, voting LibDem, in any particular seat is NOT the fact that they can\’t realistically expect to form a Government - rather that they can\’t realistically win that particular seat. The more the Lib Dems can get across the message, reinforced by their invasion into Labour heartlands in by-elections and Council elections, that there are no \”no-go areas\” for them, the greater the chance that people will vote for them. This will be even more likely should the Tory prospects continue to look grim - for the more people think a Labour victory looks inevitable, the more they are going to be directing their attentions to strengthening the opposition to them - and a vote for the Lib Dems may seem logical (especially where in previous elections the response may have simply been to abstain eg. in many supposedly safe Labour areas of the North).
What prompted me to write this article was the story on the front page of the Guardian on Tuesday quoting senior Labour strategists who were takng a very gloomy view of the party\’s current prospects. Click on the link it is very well worth reading. You have all the conditions in the party that were there with the Tories after the ERM crisis in September 1992.
A membership collapse, a huge reduction in the number of coucillors, the failure almost to score at all in elections of any kind - local, Euro and by-elections. The only thing they have is that people remember that the party has a fearsome General Election machine that did brilliantly the last two times it was tested. There\’s a danger in Andrew Cooper\’s analysis, 19 above, in always viewing Labour in relation to the Tories and nobody else.
My suggestion of 25 \”Non-Baxter\” gains by the Lib Dems is the part of the article that has been most attacked. All I can say is go and look through the 2001 results of the seats Labour is defending; find those seats where the Lib dems have surged forward in local elections; take a quarter off the Labour vote of last time and add a third to the LD total in line with the polls; and, because many have small electorates with low turnouts, see how few extra votes the LDS need for victory. Then ask yourself whether a party devoid now of activists can defend itself against a sure-footed LD machine.
The mood of the nation has changed since the War, Hutton and Butler. Blair\’s personal ratings are appalling and this is not going to be forgotten. My prediction is a hung parliament with Labour having most seats.
FINALLY A BIG THANK YOU to those who\’ve nominated Politicalbetting.com for the BBC\’s best political websites. I could not understand why our traffic more than doubled yesterday but now we know.
It\’s a good point - people are keen to quote precedents showing how Governments \”always recover\” from mid-term slumps. Well what about the 1992-97 parliament? The Tories hit around 30% (ICM) in mid 1993 and didn\’t move (and have barely moved since). The public just fell out of love with them and have never come back, leaving them stubbornly unable to break out from their core support. The situation with Labour may be even more dangerous - it is their core supporters who are deserting them, leaving them highly reliable on a \”soft vote\” of people who they won over in the 1990s, and have stuck with them ever since - probably due to the strength of the economy (and continuing doubts about the Tories). Because this \’soft vote\’ is what is crucial for winning General Elections they will probably hold on (perhaps comfortably), but there is clearly the potential there for a total collapse of the Labour vote, probably beyond what the Tories have suffered, should anything go seriously wrong on the domestic front.
*as evidenced by local election results worse than anything even the Tories managed.
Up to a point re. Labour managing local election results worse than anything the Tories managed. Yes, Labour came third this year. All the same, its 26% share of the vote was better than the 25% to which the Tories sunk in the 1995 local elections. The real danger is that, with LD councillors (and, indeed, councils) in traditional Labour areas, the LDs will do what they\’ve done in previous Tory strongholds (Guildford, Cheltenham, Cheadle), and use their local government base to chip away at ostensibly safe Labour seats.
I\’m not sure where this \’Labour is the only governing party to come third in local elections\’ came from - Major\’s Tories managed it - probably as Richard said in 1995.
I also don\’t know why people think that Cheltenham has been a Tory stronghold - it was never a massively safe seat for them and in 1966 they were within a thousand votes of losing (to Labour). I know it quite well and it\’s actually a tough industrial town - like Gloucester.
The Conservatives managed third place in terms of seats in 1995, when they were reduced to just 13 authorities nationwide, but they retained second place in terms of vote share (the Lib Dems took 23% IIRC).
lets not get to giddy! the lib dems/alliance have been about to make the break through to the big time for 25 years. we\’ve been here before with mid term by elections all the way through the 1980\’s. I accept that some things are differnet know the lib dems have a better machine, more MP@S and councillors. The regional network that having MEP\’S and mebers of the devolved asemblies also helps. I also accept the \”university seats\” theory and we may see some surprises. however the party has a limited mebership and even more limited financial resources and struggles for air time. when you start talking about 100 plus seats nearly doubling the current total…. i just think you need a bit of perpective
The irony is that, whereas breakthroughs were expected by many commentators in the 1980s, LD chances were played down ni advance of the two General Elections when the Lds got the highest number of MPs for a third party since the 1920s. I remember reading in the run-up to the 1997 GE that the promise to raise a penny on income tax would see the number of LDs fall. I similarly remember reading, in the run up to the 2001 GE that the LDs would struggle to hold on to the gains they made in 1997, and that Charles Kennedy would be too \’shy\’ to be a good campaigner on the stump. The last two elections saw two particularly encouraging trends for them. First, the beginnings of being a national (third) party, breaking out from their previous redoubts of the south-west, the south-east, and the Celtic fringe, gaining MPs in regions such as Yorkshire (Sheffield Hallam and Harrogate in 97), the North-West (Hazel Grove in 97 and Cheadle in 2001), East Anglia (Colchester 97), and the East Midlands (Chesterfield in 2001). Second, 2001 showed that they could pass on seats from retiring MPs to new candidates (something which they\’d previously struggled to do, losing both Colne Valley and the Isle of Wight in 1987 when the long-serving Liberal MPs retired at that election). Ironically, the two seats lost in 2001 were lost by (one-term) incumbents, Jackie Ballard in Taunton, and Peter Brand in the Isle of Wight. Obviously the next GE will see them hope to win seats in inner-city seats with large numbers of ethnic minority (particularly Muslim) voters, university towns, and in the urban north-east (Durham City falls in both of the last two categories). I don\’t know whether they will get a 100 seats or more, but I\’m pretty sure that they will, yet again, increase their number of MPs. On that point, David and me are in (apparent) agreement.