Why the odds are still on a Labour victory in 2015

The electoral system, UKIP and the strength of the Labour brand all mean that the party is still likely to be the largest after the next election even after a fall in support.

In recent weeks a new mood of pessimism has taken hold among Labour MPs and a new mood of optimism among the Tories. Labour's double digit poll lead has shrunk to around eight points, with the party ahead by just five points in the last two YouGov surveys. Since governing parties almost always recover support in the months before the general election (as the opposition comes under greater scrutiny and as voters start to view the election as a choice between competing alternatives, rather than a referendum on the government), a lead of five is not enough for Labour to be confident of winning a majority in 2015 or even of becoming the largest single party.

Among MPs, a hung parliament, rather than a Labour majority, is now viewed as the most likely outcome of the election, with some even speculating that the Tories could go all the way and achieve the majority that eluded them in 2010. But for good reasons, the odds (literally) are still on a Labour victory in 2015 (in this case, defined as becoming the largest party). It's true that oppositions rarely return to government at the first attempt of trying - the last time was in February 1974 - but Britain's new electoral landscape means Labour is well positioned to do so. Here are five of the reasons why. 

1. Labour can win big on a small lead

The key point in Labour's favour is that it requires a far smaller lead than the Tories to win a majority. 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. 

2. UKIP will still be a force in 2015

While UKIP's support is almost certain to fall heavily before May 2015 (they are currently polling around 12 per cent in YouGov surveys), it's likely that it will poll above 5 per cent, a level of support that is large enough to have a significant influence on the outcome of the election. With UKIP drawing around 60 per cent of its support from 2010 Tory voters, it is the Conservatives who will lose most from the rise of the Farageists.

The split in the right-wing vote will make it easier for Labour to dislodge the Tories in the marginals it needs to win to become the largest party. At the last election, with a UKIP share of just 3 per cent, there were 20 constituencies in which the party's vote exceeded the Labour majority (one shouldn't make the error of assuming that all those who supported the party would have backed the Tories in its absence, but many would have done).

3. Most Lib Dem defectors are likely to remain loyal to Labour

The main reason why Labour has led the Tories in the polls for more than two years, despite suffering its second worst defeat since 1918 at the last election, is the mass defection of left-leaning Lib Dems to the party in protest at the coalition. Significantly, as Lord Ashcroft's recent poll of the party's supporters noted, they are less likely to return to the Lib Dem fold than other voters. Ashcroft observed that "those who have moved to Labour are the most likely to say they are sure how they will vote (78%). This compares to just over a two thirds of those who say they would vote Conservative (69%), just under two thirds of those who say they would vote UKIP (62%) and less than half of those who would vote Green (42%)."

The decision of the Lib Dems not to replace Nick Clegg with a more left-wing figure such as Vince Cable or Tim Farron makes it more likely that these voters will remain loyal to Labour in 2015. 

4. Labour's brand is strong even if Miliband's isn't (and that may not matter)

Of the three main parties, it is Labour that is the least toxic, with 46 per cent of voters saying that they would "consider" voting for the party compared to 40 per cent for the Tories. While 35 per cent say that they would "definitely not" vote for Labour, 43 per cent say that they would "definitely not" vote for the Tories, placing a notable cap on Conservative support. Labour, by contrast, is fishing in a larger pool. 

Faced with this disadvantage, the Tories console themselves with the thought that Ed Miliband's unpopularity will deny his party victory (the Labour leader is known as their "secret weapon"). Miliband's approval rating is currently -33 compared to Cameron's -18 and the Tory leader has consistently led as "the best prime minister" (most recently by 35-20). 

But while Cameron's greater popularity could save the day for the Tories, it is complacent of the party to assume as much. History shows that a well-liked (or, more accurately, less disliked) leader is no guarantee of electoral success. In the final poll before the 1979 election, Jim Callaghan enjoyed a 19-point lead over Margaret Thatcher as "the best prime minister" but that didn't stop the Conservatives winning a majority of 44 seats. Similarly, in the 1970 election, Harold Wilson's personal lead over Ted Heath (a 51 per cent approval rating compared to one of 28 per cent for Heath) didn't stop Labour going down to a decisive defeat. 

In 2010, David Cameron's lead over Gordon Brown wasn't enough to deliver the Tories a majority. In 2015, his lead over Miliband may not be enough to deny Labour victory. 

5. The Lib Dem incumbency bonus will hurt the Tories

More than any other party, the Lib Dems benefit from an incumbency bonus, with their MPs typically polling between 5 and 15 per cent more than the party's other candidates. As the Eastleigh by-election demonstrated, in those seats where the party is well organised and where it can appeal for tactical votes from Labour supporters, it can still win. In 2015, this will largely be a problem for the Tories, who are in second place in 37 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats. The potential for the Tories to make large gains from the Lib Dems to compensate for the marginal seats they will lose to Labour is limited. 

Labour needs a lead of just 1 per cent to win a majority, compared to a lead of 7 per cent for the Tories. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Bomb Isil? That's exactly what they want

The government appears not to answer the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.

As MPs are set to vote on further airstrikes in Syria, it is difficult to shake off the feeling that the government does not fully appreciate the complexity of the problem Isil poses. Just a cursory glance at its magazine, the pronouncements of its leaders and its ideology reveals that Isil is desperate for Western bombs to fall out of the sky. As Martin Chulov argues, Isil is fighting a war it believes was preordained since the early days of Islam. Isil’s obsession with the city of Dabiq, in Northern Syria, stems from a hadith which prophesises that the ‘Crusader’ army will land in the city as a precursor to a final battle where Islam will emerge victorious. Dabiq is also the name of its magazine, which starts every issue with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq". Isil wants a war with the West. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, then we also should not give them what they want.

Further, bombs are indiscriminate and will inevitably lead to the suffering of those trapped in Isil territories. Isil is counting on this suffering to swell their ranks. Civilian suffering from airstrikes only underline the narrative that the West is at war with Islam, which plays directly into Isil’s hands. And despite misleading headlines and the genuine government concern with individuals fleeing to Syria, Isis is supremely unpopular. It is no wonder that its magazine is filled with glossy adds begging people to move to its territories.  You cannot be a state without people. Terrorist attacks such as Paris thus have a two-pronged purpose: they provoke the West to respond with its military, and they act as a recruitment drive. The fact that fake Syrian passports were found around the sites of the Paris attacks is no coincidence as Isil are both seeking to stem the flow of refugees from its territories and hoping to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. They hope that, as more Muslims feel alienated in the West, more will join them, not just as fighters, but as the doctors, nurses and teachers it desperately needs.

In addition to this, airstrikes overlook the fact that Isil is a result of what Fawaz Gerges calls a severe, organic institutional crisis in the Middle East. In a lecture at the London School of Economics earlier this year, Gerges pointed out the dysfunction created when a region that is incredibly resource rich also is also deeply undemocratic, riddled with corruption, food insecurity, unemployment and poverty. This forms an institutional vacuum that is filled by non-state actors as the population does not trust its political structures. Further, the civil war in Syria is also the site of the toxic soup of Middle Eastern state dysfunction. Iran supports Assad, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, fund anti-Shia groups in Syria. Throw in the Kurdish conflict, Turkey’s ambiguous position and Russian bombs, it is difficult to see how airstrikes will solve anything.

Finally, it is crucial that Isil is seen as a direct result of the Iraq war. The American-led invasion destroyed the institutions, giving the Shia majority power almost overnight, creating deep dissatisfaction in the Sunni regions of Iraq. On top of this thousands of foreign fighters flooded Iraq to fight the invaders, attracting disenfranchised and angry Sunnis. The result is that since 2003, Iraq has been embroiled in a sectarian civil war.  It is in civil war, inherently connected to the Iraq War, that you find the roots of Isil. As even the Prime Minister concedes that ground troops are necessary, albeit it regional ground troops with its own set of problems, it is important to consider what further monster can arise from the ashes of another ill-thought out military intervention in the Middle East.
We have had decades of military intervention in the Middle East with disastrous consequences. Airstrikes represent business as usual, when what we actually need is a radically new approach. Who is funding Isil? Who is buying its oil? How to curb Isil’s recruitment drives? What can be done about the refugees? How to end the conflict in Syria? What happens to Assad? These are questions hopefully being addressed in talks recently held in Vienna with Russian, Ira, the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states. Airstrikes do not answer any of these questions. What airstrikes do is give Isil exactly what it is asking for. Surely this is reason enough not to bomb Syria. 

Maria W. Norris is a PhD candidate and a teacher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her PhD is on the UK counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 and its relationship with identity. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.