David Cameron and George Osborne during a Q&A session at the construction company Skanska in Rickmansworth today. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The Tories are planning a defensive election strategy - and that's bad news for Labour

With little chance of winning an overall majority, the Conservatives are focused on remaining the largest single party. 

The news that the Tories have selected just 34 candidates in the 50 most marginal seats (compared to 48 for Labour) has led to renewed questions over the party's commitment to achieving a majority at the general election. It's worth noting, as ConservativeHome's Mark Wallace does, that the Tories have selected candidates in all 40 of their target seats (which are not the same as those with the smallest Labour or Lib Dem majority), but there is no doubt that the party has adopted a more defensive approach. 

The initial 40:40 strategy (aimed at winning 40 new seats and retaining the party's 40 most vulnerable) has been abandoned in favour of a 48:40 strategy weighted towards existing constituencies. It is these seats that the party is also focusing financial resources on

Some in Labour might be tempted to respond by deriding the party's lack of ambition but the Tories' reorientation could be bad news for the opposition. Aware that they have little hope of achieving an overall majority, owing to the rise of Ukip and the electoral bias towards Labour, the Conservatives are rightly focusing on the far more achievable goal of remaining the largest party in a hung parliament. By raising the local profile of its new MPs, the party hopes that it will benefit from the traditional first-time incumbency bonus (in 2010, it performed best in those seats it won in 2005), the factor that many Conservatives believe will tilt the election in their favour. 

As for Labour, it remains formally committed to targeting 106 seats but one source recently told me that the figure (adopted when Tom Watson was general election coordinator) was not "set in stone", suggesting only that the party was committed to seeking a majority (106 gains would give Labour a majority of 78). The greater the evidence of the Tories' defensive approach becomes, the more likely it is that Labour will dampen its ambitions too. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland