Tory momentum stalls in the marginals that matter

Cameron's lead down to 2 points, personal ratings tank.

Eighteen months ago, someone at Channel 4 News made a smart call. It was autumn 2008 and the programme's makers were keen to discover whether Gordon Brown's role in "saving" the banks would ultimately save his premiership. But rather than test the mood of the country as a whole, the show set about polling in marginal constituencies.

And not just any marginals. The seats where David Cameron's Conservatives only needed to overturn a lead of a few hundred were irrelevant -- Cameron had those in the bag long ago. Rather, YouGov was asked to look at seats where Labour had majorities of roughly 2,000 to 7,000 votes, the very seats the Tories have to win if they want an overall majority.

In other words, these are the marginals that matter.

This week, YouGov returned to those 60 Labour-Conservative constituencies and last night Channel 4 News broke the bad news to Cameron and co -- the Tory lead over Labour is just 2 points, translating to a Conservative government 11 short of a majority. This is hung parliament territory.

The figures themselves are not disastrous for the Conservatives but the trend is worrying, suggesting a loss of that electoral magic formula: momentum.

Back in October 2008, despite the bailout bounce Brown was enjoying elsewhere, the Tories had a commanding 13 per cent lead in these 60 seats. Moreover, Cameron's personal ratings comfortably trumped Brown's. Not any more. For example, 70 per cent now think that David Cameron in No 10 would mean either change for the worse or no change.

The Michael Ashcroft millions, targeted at just this kind of seat, may yet start to work, but as YouGov's president, Peter Kellner, notes:

If Mr Cameron can't turn that round, and if the general election results are exactly in line with our poll, then the Tory leader would unquestionably become prime minister, but he may need to call an early second election to seek a clearer mandate from Britain's voters.

And if he continues to lose momentum in these seats, things could be even worse. As it says on this week's New Statesman cover: "Game on".

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Show Hide image

Testing migrant children’s teeth for their age is not only immoral – it doesn’t work

Ministers have flirted with this idea for over a decade. It’s bad policy, as well as poor ethics.

This week, the Home Office finally ruled out the use of x-rays to establish the age of childhood migrants.

It’s welcome news, but this story predates the dispersal of the Calais “Jungle” camp. 

For over ten years, ministers in Conservative and Labour governments have flirted with these tests. And it’s been up to us – the practitioners who’d be expected to administer them – to pick holes in a policy that’s a great way of securing headlines, but simply cannot deliver on the claims made by its cheerleaders.

It goes without saying dentists are health professionals, not border guards. But our objections run deeper than that. And it’s worth revisiting the arguments, just in case future governments start grasping for silver bullets.

It’s ineffective

We can talk about philosophy later, but let’s start with a pretty fundamental objection: dental x-rays are simply not a reliable way of establishing age.

No two mouths are alike. I’ll add my own to that list, as I still sport two of my baby teeth.

Children and young people mature at different rates, so the level of accuracy in these tests changes with time. And these x-rays can estimate age in younger children much more accurately than in adolescents. So as children mature at different rates, the potential margin of error gets ever larger with age.

For example, the third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth – the last permanent teeth to develop – can form any time between the ages of 16 and 23, and a small proportion of individuals never develop third molars at all (I’ll have to pop my name to that list too).

A 2010 study of 300 young people aged between 11 and 25, whose age was determined based on dental x-rays, showed this method of testing consistently over- or under-estimated age, with a two-year average difference between dental and known age.

So if you are searching for a litmus test that will tell you whether a subject is 17 or 19 years old you won’t find it here.

It’s inappropriate

A few MPs and pundits have found it hard to acknowledge the codes health practitioners sign up to, which make this test a no go.

We must always act in the best interest of our patients when providing a medical procedure. And it is beyond question that the process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit.

Now many people might not consider this test an invasive procedure. However, x-rays do carry a small risk of possible long-term physical impact, and current best practice in this area dictates that exposure to radiation should be kept as low as reasonably possible over a lifetime. They should be carried out sparingly and where there is a well-defined potential clinical benefit, which must always outweigh the potential clinical harm.

As taking x-rays to determine the age of an individual carries no clinical benefit, it frankly isn’t appropriate to expose a patient to the potential clinical harm it can cause.

It’s unethical

Our lawmakers cannot simply dispense with fundamentals like consent to show they are “taking action”.

It is a legal principle that before practitioners carry out any medical procedure, the recipient – or someone who can consent on their behalf – must be given a full understanding of the nature of the procedure, its significance, impact and potential consequences before signing up to it.

For the children arriving from Calais, this would be a difficult task without English as a first language. Consent may also be required from a suitable adult. Yes, these children may be unaccompanied, but it does not mean the need for valid consent and protecting the child’s best interests can simply be ignored.

The letter of the law might be inconvenient, but it is a requirement that can only be compromised where the urgency and necessity of the circumstances demand rapid action in a patient’s best interests. And even in these circumstances the validity of treatment has sometimes ended up being challenged in the courts.

Given that taking x-rays in order to determine age is not medically justifiable in the first place, the urgency justification really doesn’t come into play. And that means dental colleagues – in the absence of valid consent – could find themselves performing an act that constitutes a criminal battery.


In the past, ministers have debated whether there is a credible “public interest” case that might override these little legal or philosophical objections. But these practical and ethical concerns can’t really be separated.

But why bother constructing a case for a test that frankly isn’t much cop? Dentists can only hope the latest message from the Home Office marks the beginning of a consensus, which draws a line under a decade of wishful thinking.

Judith Husband, Chair of the British Dental Association’s Education, Ethics and the Dental Team Working Group.