Return to: Home | Blogs | Public Accounts

Shock, horror: Tories may not win

Polls show hung parliament still on the cards

Another day, another round of Brown-baiting. But despite this shallow game -- happiness and charisma are more important than substance in this media age -- and despite the misplaced hysteria over the Sun's cynical stunt aimed at overshadowing Labour's conference, there are a few largely ignored signs that the Cameron-has-already-won consensus is premature.

My colleague Mehdi Hasan and I have long made the point that Cameron's Tories (roughly 30-40) are polling way below Tony Blair's Labour (roughly 40-60) in the 1990s, and it is worth reading Blair's former adviser Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, writing a blog from Russia on the subject here. Now, a largely unnoticed poll has Labour closing the gap, to 30-37 against the Tories. Mehdi today put the numbers into the Electoral Calculus website, as you can here, and the result came up as 294 seats (Con), 266 (Lab) and 58 (Lib Dem).

Hung parliaments are often predicted but don't come: yet it has to happen one day, and it is looking increasingly likely next year will be that time. Part of Brown's strategy in making an announcement on the "Alternative Vote" may have been to win over the Liberal Democrats in the event of this happening. But because AV is not proportional, it probably won't be enough. As Mehdi has outlined, the Liberals have moved from a position under Charles Kennedy, in which they would have got into bed with Labour, to one -- guided by Vince Cable -- in which a Tory alliance looks more likely.

The frenzy over Gordon Brown's premiership will be given a boost by jubilant Tories in Manchester next week. But the Tories, as Alastair Campbell has said, have yet to "seal the deal" with the electorate. I think I am the only journalist in Britain who still thinks Brown could win a slim overall majority. But if we are heading for a hung parliament, he will have to do more -- including a possible rethink on that elusive election-day referendum on electoral reform -- if he is to survive.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

15 comments from readers

John Hawkins
01 October 2009 at 17:30

I think the reality for every voter must be that , New Labour with all it's flaws and mishandling of the economy and over reliance on the vitues of market forces ( by Which I mean Neoliberalism ) are the best of a sorry bunch and , I'm afraid that , if we don't want to see the return of Thatcherism with all its ruinious policies then , we have to vote for New Labour and keep Cameron as far away as possible from the seat of government .

Simon
01 October 2009 at 17:39

Are you going to revisit this article now that the new daily tracker is out?

Labour is back to 14 points behind.

Slim overall majority? There is no hope of that.

Would the LibDems prop up a Brown-led Labour party that had lost an election? It would be electoral suicide for them to do so.

The best Brown can hope for is to keep the number of losses down and the Tory majority to under 20

But other than that, I can see no hope

geoffh
01 October 2009 at 17:45

"Hung parliaments are often predicted but never come: it has to happen one day "

No it doesn't.

Steve Green (Daily Referendum)
01 October 2009 at 17:46

YouGuv C40. L26. LD20

Ooops!

It was The Sun Wot Won It!!!!

Mike Taylor
01 October 2009 at 17:48

Timing is everything. Unfortunately your post coincided with todays results of your quoted poll putting the Tory lead back to 14%!! Doh!

David Boycott
01 October 2009 at 17:51

It is a historical fact that UK polls in the 1990s overstated the Labour vote. The methodologies have since been corrected. Comparing the data is therefore pointless.

Steve Green (Daily Referendum)
01 October 2009 at 17:56

Is that a newspaper I hear ripping?

Chris Gillibrand
01 October 2009 at 18:22

The Socialists went down to fourth place in a couple of Austrian regional elections recently and were hammered in the German General Election. Good chance Labour will be third in the General if they carry on as they have been doing.

BW
01 October 2009 at 19:07

No sooner your publish this tripe than it is out of date, the brown bounce is over already on the last day of the conference. 20 LD:26 Lab: 40 Cons. You should know better than to get excited over a mid-conference poll is reeally does not do the credability of your publication any good. And, as for comparing todays polls with those of the 90's - come off it, you know polling methods have changed. But still you lefties have to do something to try to keep your sinking ship afloat, but only for a few months more....

jim
01 October 2009 at 20:56

What a lazy piece of journalism.

If you mate Mehdi had even bothered to do some very basic research you would have found that polls in the 90's had an in-built Labour bias which has now been corrected by the major polloing companies.

So your point about 40-60 & 30-40 is totally worthless.

Please in future do some basic research before writing nonesense.

Hriday
01 October 2009 at 23:24

I hope the great British public do not forget the damage the past Tory Govts. have done to the country, when they come to vote on election day.

NG
02 October 2009 at 08:14

re Hriday Well they certainly won't forget the appalling damage to the country that the CURRENT Labour government has done. Stop living in the past and face up to the relities of now. Once again a Labour government has run our of our money, most of which it has p*ssed up the wall/. Once again a Conservative government will have to clean up the mess.

storm
02 October 2009 at 11:19

With all this Granite Brown Baiting, he may just get a sympathy vote. Earlier this week, media was alight with stories of monstrous neighbours who hounded and bullied a family to their death - not quite as desperate, but bullying nonetheless. Clegg and Cameron look and sound the same. Clegg is weak and can't articulate when up against it. Libs keep picking the wrong man, or picking on the right one. We can't possibly have a hung parliament, conjoined by vapid Cameron and a hesitant, insubstantial Clegg. But then again, the lisping Blair pretender, ALPHA 'course' Miliband is even more terrifying. What to do? Vince Cable should really have stepped in.

Alex
05 October 2009 at 00:12

"the Liberals have moved from a position under Charles Kennedy, in which they would have got into bed with Labour, to one -- guided by Vince Cable -- in which a Tory alliance looks more likely."

Under Kennedy the Lib Dems would never have got into bed with anyone, certainly not Labour whose rampant illiberalism and warmongering created a huge gulf between the two parties.

If Labour people genuinely think the Kennedy era represented the halcyon days when the errant Lib Dem fellow travellers might have seen the error of their ways then they really have no idea not just about the Lib Dems but about the ugly reality of the post-1994 Labour Party itself.

Margaret Young
07 October 2009 at 23:05

The Con artists have clearly not sealed the deal with a very sceptical electorate. You are quite correct the vacuum who leads the Tory Party does not have the kind of lead Blair had in Opposition. With the economy recovering well who knows what will happen, I'm quite sure a Tory landslide won't though!

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Clegg wins PMQs

25 November 2009 12:48

Tackling domestic violence against women and girls

25 November 2009 07:39

The New Israel Fund

24 November 2009 18:11

Thought for the day

24 November 2009 12:00

Chilcot inquiry: who benefits?

24 November 2009 11:11

Iraq inquiry: when did UK sign up for regime change?

23 November 2009 15:59

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will the Iraq inquiry be a 'whitewash'?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker