Five political predictions for 2014

Labour will end the year ahead in the polls, Scotland will reject independence by a double-digit margin and Ed Balls will remain shadow chancellor.

J.K.Galbraith liked to remark that "the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." One could say the same of political predictions. But with that warning duly noted, here are five of mine for 2014.

1. Labour will end the year ahead in the polls

The polls will remain tight as the Tories continue to benefit (however undeservedly) from the economic recovery, but Labour will end the year in front. The proportion of 2010 Lib Dem voters supporting Miliband's party and the proportion of 2010 Conservative voters supporting UKIP will remain too great for the Tories to move ahead. As May 2015 approaches, discussion will increasingly focus on whether Labour will win an overall majority or, alternatively, become the single largest party, with many Tory MPs resigning themselves to defeat.

End of year polling averages:

Labour 38%

Conservatives 33%

UKIP 15%

Lib Dems 10%

2. Scotland will reject independence by a double-digit margin

The No campaign retained a comfortable lead throughout this year and that won't change in 2014. On 18 September, Scotland will reject independence by a margin no smaller than 10 points and conceivably as large as 25. The pessimists in the Unionist camp and the optimists on the nationalist side point to three factors that could work in the SNP's favour: the large number of undecided voters, Alex Salmond's strength as a campaigner and the unpredictability of referendums. But none of these suggests a yes vote is likely.

There is no reason to believe that the quarter of Scots yet to decide how they will vote will break for the nationalists in the number required for victory. Indeed, according to the most recent YouGov poll, which put the No side ahead by 52-33, even winning over 100 per cent would still leave the Yes camp four points behind.

The SNP might have overturned a double-digit Labour lead to triumph in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections, but there was at least something close to a precedent for this in the form of the party's 2007 victory. By contrast, there has never been anything close to a majority for independence and the uncertainty created by the financial crisis and its aftermath has made voters even more reluctant to take that leap into the dark.

There have been polls showing that Scots would vote for independence if they believed it would make them better off, but the problem for Salmond is that they don't. Asked earlier this month by YouGov, "Do you think Scotland would be economically better or worse off if it became an independent country, or would it make no difference?" (the defining issue of the campaign), just 26% said "better off" and 48% said "worse off". If Salmond couldn't persuade voters that Scotland would be better off alone when the UK was in an austerity-induced double-dip recession, he's not going to be able to persuade them now.

Referendums are uncertain beasts, but the clear tendency is for support for the status quo to increase as voting day approaches (as in the case of the 1975 EU referendum, the 2011 AV referendum and the 1980 Quebec referendum). Faced with the real possibility of secession, I expect a significant minority of Yes supporters to reverse their stance. Ed Miliband, who would struggle to govern if Labour was stripped of its Scottish MPs, and David Cameron, who would become known as the prime minister who lost the Union, will unite in relief.

3. Unemployment will fall to 7% but the Bank of England won't raise rates

Back in August, when Mark Carney introduced forward guidance, the Bank of England didn't expect unemployment to fall to 7% until 2016 (it then stood at 7.8%). But with joblessness already down to 7.4%, my prediction is that the 7% threshold, the trigger for the Bank to consider a rate rise, will be reached by the end of the year.

At this point, hawkish economists will demand an increase in the base rate, but Carney will reject their advice. The governor will cite the continuing weakness of household finances, with many trapped in low-paid work, as the main reason to maintain monetary stimulus and hold rates at their record low of 0.5%.

4. Labour will win the European elections

There is a consensus among the media that UKIP will triumph in the European elections as Nigel Farage turns them into a referendum on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, but my prediction is a narrow Labour win. The most recent poll gave Miliband's party a seven-point lead over UKIP (32-25) and while this will decline as the campaign proper begins, they will retain the advantage. Quite simply, there are too many voters whose default setting is to back Labour (the elections will be held on 22 May, the same day as the locals) for Farage to win in a national contest. The Tories will finish in third place (prompting predictable panic among their backbenchers), with the Lib Dems in fourth and the Greens in fifth.

5. Ed Balls will remain shadow chancellor

Ed Miliband has stated several times, most recently last week, that Labour will go into the general election with Ed Balls as shadow chancellor, but this won't stop Fleet Street commentators speculating that he will be moved. The cries for Balls to be thrown overboard will reach a crescendo as Alistair Darling leads the Unionist side to victory in the Scottish independence referendum (see prediction number two), just days before the Labour conference opens, but Miliband will wisely disregard them.

The appointment of the man who was Chancellor at the time of the financial crisis would be a gift to the Tories and Balls's rare combination of political cunning and economic nous means he remains the best qualified individual for the job. As 2014 draws to a close, the shadow chancellor will, after years of waiting, finally be able to look forward to delivering his first Budget.

Ed Miliband will still have more to smile about than David Cameron in 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Women-only train carriages are just a way of ensuring more spaces are male by default

We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

“A decent girl,” says bus driver Mukesh Singh, “won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy.”

Singh is one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and fatal assault of Jyoti Singh Pandey on a Delhi bus in 2013. His defence was that she shouldn’t have been on the bus in the first place. Presumably he’d have said the same if she’d been on a train. In the eyes of a rapist, all space is male-owned by default.

I find myself thinking of this in light of shadow fire minister Chris Williamson’s suggestion that woman-only train carriages be introduced in order to combat sexual violence on public transport. It’s an idea originally proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, only to be shelved following criticism from female MPs.

Now Williamson feels that a rise in sex attacks on public transport has made it worth considering again. Speaking to PoliticsHome, he argues that “complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks”. He does not bother to mention who the perpetrators might be. Bears, vampires, monsters? Doesn’t really matter. As long as you keep the bait safely stored away in a sealed compartment, no one’s going to sniff it out and get tempted. Problem solved, right?

And that’s not the only benefit of a woman-only carriage. What better way to free up space for the people who matter than to designate one solitary carriage for the less important half of the human race?

Sure, women can still go in the free-for-all, male-violence-is-inevitable, frat-house carriages if they want to. But come on, ladies - wouldn’t that be asking for it? If something were to happen to you, wouldn’t people want to know why you hadn’t opted for the safer space?

It’s interesting, at a time when gender neutrality is supposed to be all the rage, that we’re seeing one form of sex segregated space promoted while another is withdrawn. The difference might, in some cases, seem subtle, but earlier sex segregation has been about enabling women to take up more space in the world – when they otherwise might have stayed at home – whereas today’s version seem more about reducing the amount of space women already occupy.

When feminists seek to defend female-only toilets, swimming sessions and changing rooms as a means of facilitating women’s freedom of movement, we’re told we’re being, at best, silly, at worst, bigoted. By contrast, when men propose female-only carriages as a means of accommodating male violence and sexual entitlement, women are supposed to be grateful (just look at the smack-downs Labour’s Stella Creasy received for her failure to be sufficiently overjoyed).

As long as over 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, there can be no such thing as a gender-neutral space. Any mixed space is a male-dominated space, which is something women have to deal with every day of their lives. Our freedoms are already limited. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about personal safety. Each time it is proposed that women don’t go there or don’t do that, just to be on the safe side, our world gets a little bit smaller. What’s more, removing the facilities we already use in order to go there or do that tends to have the exact same effect.

Regarding female-only carriages, Williamson claims “it would be a matter of personal choice whether someone wanted to make use of [them].” But what does that mean? Does any woman make the “personal choice” to put herself at risk of assault? All women want is the right to move freely without that constant low-level monologue – no, those men look fine, don’t be so paranoid, you can always do the key thing, if you’ve thought it’s going to happen that means it won’t …. We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

In 1975’s Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller pointed out that the fact that a minority of men rape “provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation”. Whether they want to or not, all men benefit from the actions of those Brownmiller calls “front-line masculine shock troops”. The violence of some men should not be used as an opportunity for all men to mark out yet more space as essentially theirs, but this is what happens whenever men “benevolently” tell us this bus, this train carriage, this item of clothing just isn’t safe enough for us.

“A decent girl,” says the future rapist, “wouldn’t have been in a mixed-sex carriage late at night.” It’s time to end this constant curtailment of women’s freedoms. A decent man would start by naming the problem – male violence – and dealing with that. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.