David Miliband warns Labour that the Tories could win a majority in 2015

Miliband predicts that there will not be a coalition government after the next election and says this could be "a great prize for the Tories".

Andrew Marr made a welcome return to TV this morning, interviewing David Miliband in the latter's final interview before he leaves for New York to become head of the International Rescue Committee.

The most striking moment came when Marr asked Miliband whether he agreed that the age of single-party majority governments was at an end. Miliband replied: "I don't take the conventional wisdom on this. I actually think the conventional assumption that we're bound to get a coalition is wrong." He warned, however, that the Tories as well as Labour could win a majority.

"I actually think that, in the end, the British people will take a view and I think that is a great prize for Labour. The danger is it could be a great prize for the Tories as well."

He also suggested that Labour should avoid drawing false comfort from "meaningless" opinion polls.

"I think there's a bit too much mathematics going on in the way people are looking at the polls. Remember that the polls are meaningless at this stage because they start with the question 'how would you vote if there was an election tomorrow?' There isn't an election tomorrow."

He concluded: "People will come to a judgement about the future of the country in two years' time and I would say it's all too play for; it's open."

While Miliband expressed disdain for the "mathematics" going on, the numbers do show that it will be far harder for the Tories to win a majority than it is for Labour. Based on a Lib Dem share of 15 per cent, Labour needs a lead of just 1 per cent to win an overall majority, while the Tories require one of 7 per cent. In 2005, Labour won a majority of 66 sets with a lead of three points but in 2010 the Tories fell 20 short with a lead of seven. This apparent bias has less to do with the unreformed constituency boundaries than it does with the fact that Labour's vote is far better distributed than the Tories' and that it benefits disproportionately from tactical voting. 

It's important to remember that uniform swing calculations are an unreliable guide to election outcomes since they don't take into account factors such as the incumbency bonus and above-average swings in marginal seats. Had there been a uniform swing in 2010, the Conservatives would have won 14 fewer seats, Labour eight more and the Lib Dems five more. But even if, as seems likely, the Tories perform disproportionately well in their existing seats, they will still to struggle to establish the lead that they need over Labour to even remain the largest party.

A Labour majority, however, remains a formidable challenge for Ed Miliband. As he has observed before, there is not a single example in the last 80 years of an opposition party returning to power with an overall majority after one term.

David Miliband may be right when he suggests, as Disraeli did, that "England does not love coalitions" but it does not follow that enough people will vote the right way to prevent another hung parliament.

David Miliband speaks at the Labour conference in 2010. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.