The Tories win a conference poll bounce

Labour lead reduced from 12 points to seven following Cameron's speech.

As I've noted before, the party conferences are among the few political events that can have a visible effect on the polls (the Budget, which led to a sustained fall in support for the Tories, is another). Labour won a bounce from Ed Miliband's bravura speech and it looks as if the Tories have won one from David Cameron's.

Two successive YouGov polls have put the party seven points behind Labour, compared to 10-14 points before the conference, while Cameron's lead as "the best prime minister" has risen from four points to 14. It remains to be seen, of course, whether this is a temporary or a permanent shift (one suspects the former).

The latest figures (Labour 42%, Conservatives 35%, Lib Dems 8%) would still see Miliband enter Downing Street with a majority of 90 seats, but the Tories are comforted by the fact that the party has overturned much larger Labour leads in the past. In addition, they note that support for governing parties tends to increase in the run-up to an election (as it did for Labour and Gordon Brown).

However, as things stand, it's hard to see the Conservatives remaining the single largest party, let alone winning a majority. It cannot be emphasised too strongly how difficult the loss of the boundary changes has made it for Cameron's party to win. Based on a Labour vote of 35%, the Tories would need a lead of around seven points to win a majority. In the absence of a Falklands-style bounce, it's hard to see Cameron succeeding against Miliband where he failed against Brown. After all, no sitting prime minister has increased their party's share of the vote since 1974.

David Cameron address a gathering at the Imperial War Museum in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.