Labour's shrinking poll lead increases party jitters

Having previously enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories, the party's lead has been reduced to single figures, far below the level needed to be confident of victory.

It was the Tories, rather than their Labour counterparts, who left for the summer recess with their tails up, largely for the reasons set out by David Cameron in that final, triumphant PMQs. "The deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is down, welfare is capped, and Abu Qatada is back in Jordan." Alongside this, as Thursday's GDP figures will confirm, the economy is finally beginning to recover and the party is united in support for James Wharton's EU referendum bill. 

Recess is always a time when Labour jitters increase as MPs return to their constituencies to find few of the party's messages are resonating on the doorstep and Labour's shrinking poll lead won't help matters. For more than a year after George Osborne's "omnishambles" Budget, the party enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories but today's YouGov poll puts its lead at just three points, the lowest level since March 2012. 

We'll have to wait and see whether it's an outlier but the trend is clearly downward. In the four previous YouGov polls, Labour has led by an average of just six points, a level far below that required to justify hopes of winning a majority in 2015. History shows that support for oppositions invariably slumps in the months before the general election as voters come to view it as a choice between competing alternatives, rather than a referendum on the government. It's for this reason that Labour officials privately speak of the party needing a lead of around 15 points to be confident of victory. 

As I've argued before, it's still more likely that Labour will be the largest party after the next election than the Conservatives. The electoral system continues to favour it (the party needs a lead of just 1% on a uniform swing to win a majority, while the Tories require one of seven); UKIP, which draws around 60% of its support from 2010 Tories, will continue to split the right-wing vote; most Lib Dem defectors are likely to remain loyal to Labour (they'll never forgive Clegg for his betrayals over spending cuts, tuition fees and the like); Labour's brand is strong even if Miliband's isn't (46% of voters say that they would "consider" voting for the party compared to 40% for the Tories) and the Lib Dem incumbency bonus will hurt the Tories (who are in second place in 37 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats) the most.

But it's now far from unthinkable that the Tories could remain the single largest party (which would require a lead of around three-four points) and reunite the coalition for a second term in government. All of which means that, once again, the pressure will be on Miliband to deliver "the speech of his life" come conference time. 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. 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.