Five reasons why Labour is likely to win the next general election

16th April, 2014 8:37 am

On Monday this week, YouGov President Peter Kellner wrote about the ‘fundamentals that favour Cameron’ being re-elected PM in 2015. He lists some fair points, though I’ve argued before that Mr Kellner can be a bit selective in how he presents public opinion.

url

So let me offer you a counter-point: the fundamental factors that favour Ed Miliband and the Labour party in 2015. These are the reasons why I think Labour will emerge as the largest party after the General Election in 2015.

1) The improving economy isn’t cutting deep into Labour support

Peter Kellner rightly notes that as the economy has improved, so has the Conservative reputation for running it. A year ago, they were neck-and-neck on which could run the economy better – now the Tories are 11points ahead. Plus, Britons have noticed that the economy is improving: only 43% now think its in bad shape, down from 74% a year ago.

But such positive news for the Tories has barely been felt in the polls. This week pollsters ICM pointed out that many voters who prefer the Tories to run the economy ‘nonetheless decline to back the party’. Why? Either because that’s not their key concern or their hatred of the Conservatives overrides it. For example, American voters rated Mitt Romney much higher than Obama in managing the economy in 2012, but still didn’t vote for him in similar numbers.

If Britons are less worried that the UK economy is on the brink of collapse, their focus is more likely to shift to their standard of living. And the cost of living crisis continues to get worse. Furthermore, Labour supporters are less likely to benefit from an improving economy than traditionally wealthier Tory voters.

2) Ed Miliband’s personal ratings aren’t dragging down Labour support either

“I like Labour, but I’m not sure about your leader” – I’ve heard that while campaigning more times than I can count, as I’m sure other Labour activists will have too. There’s no point ignoring the fact that Ed Miliband hasn’t yet managed to define himself well. There have been flashes – his fight against the Daily Mail for example – but these are rare occurrences among a torrent of speeches, which he finds more comfortable.

But it’s not clear if that’s a drag on Labour support. Most Britons know they’re voting for a local MP not a President. Plus, Miliband has managed to avoid the Tories defining him negatively, and he will benefit from being able to speak to people directly during the TV debates.

Note: six months before the 1979 election, James Callaghan was 24 points ahead of Margaret Thatcher on who would make the best PM. In contrast, Miliband is only 16 points behind Cameron. Romney was also rated the better leader in three key swing states that Obama went on to win handily.

3) Labour’s share of the vote has been remarkably consistent and stable

Since the 2010 election, the Labour party has stayed above 35% support in the polls, rising to above 40% while the economy was in doldrums and the ‘omnishambles budget’ was fresh in people’s minds.

Former Lib Dem voters who migrated to Labour in disgust at their coalition with the Tories have so far stayed very loyal. Furthermore, they are very unlikely to vote Conservative at the election regardless of the state of the economy. If Ed Miliband can continue to keep them on side until the election, Labour will almost certainly be the largest party after it.

4) The rise of UKIP and changing demographics help Labour

The Conservatives have a more fundamental and long-term problem: they are being squeezed from both sides on the very issue they whipped up into a frenzy for years: immigration.

On one hand UKIP supporters are angry that immigration isn’t being cut, and around half refuse to back the Tories, as polling has repeatedly shown. They are very likely to attract more than 3.9% at the next election, which will deny many Tory MPs a win.

But at the same time, younger and ethnic minority voters (which are an increasing share of the public) – are turned off by anti-immigration rhetoric and stay away from them. Conservatives know this but are paralysed by indecision. This isn’t just a problem for 2015 but will continue to plague them after it too.

5) Labour votes are just better distributed

As everyone in Westminster recognises, Britain’s electoral geography and demographics are such that Labour voters are spread out more advantageously. The Conservatives need to be around seven points ahead of Labour in 2015 to eke out a win, as many Tory commentators recognise. Even if Labour manages to hold on to just 35% of voters, Tories would need over 40% to win. That is just not going to happen. Especially since many marginal constituencies have swung more towards Labour than even the national polls.

In other words, Tories have such a mountain to climb in the next year that they need a miracle to win. Fundamentally, the Labour Party is still better placed to be the largest party after the General Election in 2015.

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail moderator@labourlist.org
  • Shin

    So is that it? Sitting on your hands and hoping for the best? How about some real policies for Labour members to get behind such as Railway nationalisation, anti fracking and a real living wage? Unless Labour is bold in 2015 it is facing another 5 years of a coalition government which could easily include the conservatives again.

  • thewash

    “But it’s not clear if that’s a drag on Labour support. Most Britons know they’re voting for a local MP not a President. Plus, Miliband has managed to avoid the Tories defining him negatively, and he will benefit from being able to speak to people directly during the TV debates.”

    Ed Miliband is going to have to speak to people directly much more often between now and the TV debates (assuming Cameron agrees to them). Cameron knows Miliband is an effective public speaker and will do what he can to reduce the opportunities for Miliband to debate with him face to face.

    • Alexsandr

      Milliband -effective? Ha ha ha ha

      • treborc1

        It’s true Miliband does speak directly to people especially the middle class, and the unemployed the sick the disabled. I knocked on a door and this bloody voter came to the door and I knew he was not voting for me, he threw a bucket of water over me.

  • Chilbaldi

    “Most Britons know they’re voting for a local MP not a President”

    That’s not true though. Most (though not all) vote for who they want to make up the government. As you said, people on the doorstep comment on the leaders of all parties. These are the figureheads, and these are the people who tell you what a Labour/Tory/Lib Dem vote will get you.

    Modern politics is all about the party leadership. Voting for an MP is almost like voting for a local councillor – many don’t know who on earth the candidates are but look for the party logo they want to put the X next to.

    • markmyword49

      “Voting for an MP is almost like voting for a local councillor ”

      I disagree with you on that point. I’ve found over the years that many people in local elections vote for a person or councillor they “know” regardless of party. If they are perceived as being effective at ward level the voters don’t care about the colour of rosette they wear. In the last three years for example I’ve seen an ineffective LibDem councillor ousted whilst a very effective one increased his vote and majority. I’ve also seen a Labour councillor newly elected resign his seat because being a councillor wasn’t what he expected to be replaced in a by election by the LibDem he defeated. Its only at national elections they put their cross against a candidate from a party rather than the individual.

    • Redshift1

      There is an element of contradiction here. If people are voting for the party, and just look for the party logo, then it isn’t just about the party leader.

      The party leader and the individual parliamentary candidates can make a big difference, but ultimately the image of the party itself is the main factor.

  • CharleyFarleyFive

    These sort of articles usually start appearing when the authors recognise that their party is likely to lose. The momentum is with the Tories, the economy is racing ahead, wages are now overtaking inflation, a huge swathe of the electorate silently support welfare reform and UKIP voters will not risk a Labour government by taking a vote away from the Conservatives.

    The Tories will be returned with a small overall majority, the LibDems will do better than many expect. Labour are looking at another long stint in opposition.

    • JoeDM

      Nope. Cameron has led the Tories up a one-way street. There are too many traditional Tory defectors to UKIP for them to recover. Add to that the unbalanced constituency problem and Cameron is toast.

      • CharleyFarleyFive

        They simply will not risk a Labour government by voting for UKIP. Support for protest parties always slips away at GE time.

        • Redshift1

          The UKIP vote has got very large for you to be confident of this!

          • Alexsandr

            and of course UKIP could gain traction with a win in may 2014 leading to gains in 2015 -even from labour.

        • robertcp

          Do voters understand that by voting for one party you can let in another party? My impression is that they did not understand this during the AV referendum.

    • denise clendinning

      Dream on my friend . The Tories have to many enemies mostly the people of this country and they will sink like the Titanic with the Libdems sinking even further

      • treborc1

        Of course that has been said before and we all know the results.

    • Doug Smith

      Do you actually think the Tories will offer a referendum on the EU? Cameron would be replaced as leader if he was in a position to offer a referendum. If he was going to do it he would have already done it, as he said he would.

      The Establishment parties will only offer a referendum if they know they can achieve the right result.

      Those of us who want out of the undemocratic and increasingly militarised EU must campaign, campaign and campaign again.

      • Tubby_Isaacs

        The EU make anyone who wants access to the Single Market obey neo-liberal stuff.
        And you can be it but still be neutral, like Ireland, Sweden etc.
        But agree with you about Cameron. 307 Tories (or thereabouts). Easily enough to have a referendum.

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      Momentum?
      Tories dropping back again now.

    • MikeHomfray

      Problem for the Tories is that the bulk of that part of the electorate lives in the south east and already have Tory MP’s. The story is very different in the North and Midlands

  • markmyword49

    “The rise of UKIP and changing demographics help Labour”
    Erm? Haven’t you read reports regarding UKIP taking part of the old blue collar workers Labour vote or the simple fact that the young are less likely to vote. The young may be turned off by anti immigration rhetoric but that doesn’t mean that they’ll vote Labour. The appear to be more likely not to vote believing that there is little difference between the parties when it comes to policies that affect them.

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      “Haven’t you read reports regarding UKIP taking part of the old blue collar workers Labour vote ”

      Yep.
      They don’t take very many of them compared to Tory votes.
      Working class support (which UKIP have) doesn’t mean they’re taking the votes from Labour.

  • David Owen, Blackpool

    I wish all Labour MPs (including or especially the Front Bench) would book halls across the country, fasten on to a number of issues dear to the public – the steady marketization of the NHS, nasty social security policies, uncontrolled rents, lack of ‘affordable’ housing, a determination to regulate the banks, support for credit unions as a people’s bank, valuing of local government, how we shall give young people hope, what Labour is for, as examples – and barnstorm the country to enthuse our potential supporters that Labour can lead a new pilgrimage for fairness, honesty and the despising of greed. How many school halls, libraries and community centres are there in your constituency alone: those are the places which are closest to the electorate. We should be doing this solidly for the run-up to the election whenever it comes. Labour is fearful of hecklers if meetings were opened to the public ! I hope not. If anyone could turn up, even the odd Lib or Con, we might just show we are human beings, willing seriously to explain and debate those issues. Hey, we might even persuade the folk out there we would be worth their votes.

    • CharleyFarleyFive

      But those issues are only dear in the most part to traditional Labour voters. There’s no point preaching to the converted. It’s the swing voters that they need to attract, the less vocal, those who tend to support welfare reform, cuts in immigration and so on but don’t like to shout about it.

      • Redshift1

        Actually, for Labour, there is a big turnout issue too. It isn’t just about swing voters at all.

      • This is such a myopic view of the potential labour electorate, exactly the sort of approach – concerned with swing voters in marginal constituencies – which over the decades has proved devastatingly counter productive. David Owen is absolutely right. The failure by the labour party to build on the issues which make the Tory party persistently unpopular – unable to win outright even when Labour was on its knees in 2010 – means that a huge proportion of the population are no longer inspired to vote. It is a nonsense by the way to suggest that an appeal to fairness and honesty appeals only to traditional labour voters. Hostility to the greed of bankers and others is pretty universal. Many of the comfortably off are shocked by the brutality of the bedroom tax, deeply concerned about the prospects for their children and grandchildren and dismayed by cuts to local services They were aroused by the attempt to sell off our woodlands, they support the NHS and form some part of the significant majority who wish to restore the railways and energy companies to the public sector. They are winnable for Labour together with tens of thousands who no longer bother to vote. But it will take more passion and clarity of purpose than is on offer at the moment.

      • Tubby_Isaacs

        Figures for teachers last time show Lib Dems as getting the most votes, with the Tories not doing badly.
        Likely to be far fewer for those this time.
        That’s a big voting bloc for a start.
        See also Lord Ashcroft’s marginals poll. Labour doing well there, so far.

        • Alexwilliamz

          Almost 1 million…And Gove has pretty much alienated all of them.

      • gunnerbear

        “those who tend to support welfare reform, cuts in immigration and so on but don’t like to shout about it.”

        A very good point – the non-tribalist voter………

    • Jon

      Have you actually used a credit union, David? It’s often cheaper to borrow on your credit card! You might like them as social policies because they’re not big, bad banks, but they’re expensive financing for people already often in poverty or near poverty.

      You’d be better off advocating for the FCA to scrap or massively reduce regulation of non- systemic lenders and watch a swathe of tech savvy kids move in to offer cheaper lending to the unbanked decimating wonga and banks in one fell swoop!

    • Alexsandr

      why is the private sector in the NHS so bad for the patients? They get seen quicker. And my dads dialysis was done by the private sector and they did it well. The NHS is for patients, not for the staff.

      • treborc1

        OK now add to that if your Dad has to pay for it, a private firm doing work for the NHS is fine now remove the NHS and your Dad has to pay for it.

        Today firms taking work from the NHS tomorrow no NHS.

        • Alexsandr

          he never paid. it was just an NHS service subcontracted to a private firm.
          He doesn’t need dialysis now because he died from another illness.
          I dont see why subcontracting reduces the NHS. The NHS to the public is the sum of medical services provided by the government. The public has no interest in who provides the service, they just want treatment. Your argument that firms taking work form the NHS will remove the NHS is spurious.
          If you look most of NHS spend is private sector. GP’s, dentists and opticians are private. drug purchase is private. many services are private. and thats been the same since 1948

          • treborc1

            So why not through the NHS. I’ve no bladder or bowel Function so need to have dialysis all the time, mine is carried out by the NHS.

            The NHS is very good at what it does the reason to bring in contractors seem to be to open up the NHS to the EU and America especially America.

          • Alexsandr

            well if you are ideologically opposed to private in the NHS, fine. But you cant argue that it affects patients, which is what the NHS is for,

          • Alexwilliamz

            I affects patients indirectly by creating competition between the sub contractors and existing services. They under cut on the routine (like dialysis) because that is all they do, while the more expensive functions are left with existing NHS provision who ultimately have to. This overall works out more expensive, which i turn can lead to shortage (uneconomic to have a kidney unit for example in every hospital if they are not running the day to day elements) so further travel, or similarly it becomes more expensive because the costs of more complicated procedures falls solely on NHS services which have to be sustained without the more routine functions which are actually costing more overall. The reason being that often the internal cost of dialysis was probably subsidising these more unusual or non routine services. It is the same thing that has happen with railways where we are paying more public money into rail than when they were in public hands.

          • treborc1

            I get my done at the NHS local hospital which for me is very sadly closing to save money.

    • Leo McKinstry

      Sounds like a return to a quasi-1983 manifesto. You may characterise welfare reform as “nasty” but all opinion polls show that this is one of the Coalition’s most popular policies. What could be more unjust than the experience of a taxpayer, on below average earnings with a large mortgage, having to subsidize a neighbour with a large family who had no intention of entering the world of work? You talk of a “pilgrimage for fairness”. Most voters feel the vast welfare system is profoundly unfair.

      • treborc1

        So did Hitler and you know his cure….

        • Leo McKinstry

          Classic Godwin moment. What on earth has the Third Reich got to do with welfare reform in Britain in 2014?

          • treborc1

            hahahahahah Death dear boy death.

      • Alexwilliamz

        The problem is where they, as you, make the direct but incorrect assumption that he/she is ‘subsidising’ his neighbour, when in truth he/she is also probably being subsidised by the state, as if he/she is on below average earnings, he/she is probably taking more from the state in terms of services than he/she is paying in.
        The other problem with welfare and voters feeling it is unfair, is that there is a massive disconnect between what voters believe about the welfare system and what it actually is. Mainly because the extreme cases are reported as the norm. Do some research on all the surveys showing the difference between perception and reality, it makes scary reading.

      • gunnerbear

        “but all opinion polls show that this is one of the Coalition’s most popular policies. What could be more unjust than the experience of a taxpayer, on below average earnings with a large mortgage, having to subsidize a neighbour with a large family who had no intention of entering the world of work? You talk of a “pilgrimage for fairness”. Most voters feel the vast welfare system is profoundly unfair.”

        Totally correct – the benefits cap of £26K means that a family can get benefits / cash / payments up to a value of £26K tax free……wow….the local average wage in the area I live is about £22K (depending on how you draw local boundaries).

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      They’ve got far more candidates in place, far earlier than the other parties.

      They’re already out there doing what you want. Though public meetings in school halls aren’t what they were.

      And, to be fair, I think the public are suspicious of politicians planning to keep hospitals open in Opposition. Several Tories will have a problem on that score, having voted for Hunt’s latest thing. Basically all local hospitals are now on the line.

      • Alexwilliamz

        Local hospitals may not be the right solution anyway. The problem is that the whole system is flawed, because of the retention of the outdated GP structure. There needs to be a halfway house between hospitals and people’s homes and the GP system just does not fill this adequately (as well as being expensive). Note this is not an attack on GPs; they are hardworking and dedicated professionals.

        • treborc1

          That is the problem how do you pay for that half way house, in Wales for example the local hospital as a walk in GP center for people who are ill or sick out of hours.

          Blair of course had the idea of you paying £35 to see a doctor and this then would be a payment for some junior doctors to make a bit extra or nurses.

          I suspect this would now be of course £75 as it was a few years ago.

    • gunnerbear

      “the steady marketization of the NHS, nasty social security policies, uncontrolled rents, lack of ‘affordable’ housing,….”

      All of which a previous Red Mob HMG did nothing about. How come no word of uncontrolled immigration?

      As to ‘nasty policies’, what do you mean? The Red Mob introduced the means to cut the Spare Room Subsidy in the private sector and of course the benefits cap of £26K is wildly popular. Are you saying you want those on ‘the dole’ to get access to more than £26K of taxpayers funds?

  • RWP

    Point 5 especially is correct – and yet every time the Tories try to make the boundaries fairer, Labour cries “gerrymander!!”

    • Mark Reilly

      That’s because you are comparing two different things…

      FPTP means that an MP with a majority of 1 is the same as an MP with a majority of 10,000. Labour simply do not pile up votes in their safe seats, the % turnout is much lower
      So when you add up the national vote and get a % vote it is actually meaningless as you can never know how many (mainly Labour voters) didn’t turnout as they didn’t think they would affect the result. Therefore you cannot get a “fairer” outcome based on % of national vote.

      The Gerrymandering around the boundary proposals was that the Tories cynically wanted to use the number of registered voters rather than population to “equalise” the constituencies. This count was chosen simply because they know the Labour Urban heartlands have a more transient population who are less likely to register to vote (or in case of immigrants have the right to vote).

      • Kevin T

        If you’re going to have FPTP then surely constituencies need to be based around equal numbers of voters. Otherwise, as currently happens, one party can have twice as many constituencies in its heartlands because a lot of migrants happen to live there.

        Of course the Tories are only slightly less cynical than you lot. Neither of you would ever allow a truly fair system that did away with your ludicrous, unearned majorities based on 1/3 of the vote.

      • RWP

        Absolutely right Mark, insofar as your description of FPTP is perfect. It does not claim to be a proportional system so it is unfair to throw claims of “disproportionality” at it.

        However, Labour has campaigned hard on issues of fairness on a huge number of fronts over the years, but seems to be distinctly unenthusiastic about dropping an electoral system that is skewed heavily in its favour.

    • robertcp

      The fact is that the coalition parties had the votes to change the boundaries and they failed to do so. Changing the voting system to AV would also have made sense for two parties in a coalition.

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      The Tories were going to change the boundaries?
      That’s interesting, thought the Boundary Commission did that.

      • RWP

        Remember the Lib Demo veto in this parliament where the Tory proposal to reduce the number of MPs to 600 from 650? That would also have seen boundary changes advantageous to the Tories.

  • rogermurrayclark

    You missed out the massive postal vote fraud in Muslim areas

    • Alexsandr

      and the gerrymandering that means many labour seats have a lower electorate than tory ones.

      • Tubby_Isaacs

        Not very much difference at all.
        And not gerrymandered. Decided by the Boundary Commission.

        • MikeHomfray

          More the case that some of those seats have lower turnouts.. In fact some inner city seats are actually growing in population terms

    • mdj

      How many Muslims will vote for a party whose leader is a self-proclaimed Zionist?

      • Tubby_Isaacs

        More than voted when the leaders had invaded Iraq.

        Oona King got lots of Muslim support until she supported the war. Only then did she lose (some of) it.

      • Tubby_Isaacs

        And stop posting the same rubbish several times.

        • mdj

          If rubbish, not my rubbish, but his: ‘http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100206049/ed-miliband-calls-himself-a-zionist-a-brave-and-welcome-statement-but-will-he-dare-to-stand-by-it/’
          It disappeared the first time I posted it – are you possibly the moderator?
          I must say the statement astonished me.
          In my area the Muslim vote is safely Labour; but since most of the Cllrs are multiple landlords – and related – it’s a rather strange kind of ‘Labour’ around here.

      • rogermurrayclark

        It will be voting Jim, but not as we knew it.

        One of the main factors behind the postal vote fraud from 2005 was that because of the Iraq War Labour lost much Muslim support – obviously Labour were still desperate for the votes and the Muslim dominated Labour constituency parties wanted the public office as councillors and the influence and access to finance that brought.

        So they fixed matters on such a scale Judge Richard Mawrey described the result as “a disgrace to a bannana republic”

        Doubtless the “moderator” here will delete this comment just like the last one – which seemed to have received 100+ recomends

        Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      So did the Police.
      Got any evidence, let them know.

      • rogermurrayclark

        The Plod? LOL

        You might ask WMP why there were no criminal prosecutions here

        http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment

        You might ask why they wanted to prosecute the programme makers of Despatches Mosque

        You might ask why they brought forward a vexatious prosecution on behalf of the discredited Fiyaz Mughal against Tim Burton of LibertyGB, which charge was thrown out by the court the other day.

        You might ask why the Chief Constable of WMP so admantly opposes Micheal Gove’s efforts to find out what is going on in East Birmingham schools

  • Point 6 – the ineffable stupidity of the electorate.

    • treborc1

      Well yes that’s through drink and drugs, politics will do this to people.

  • Richard Corbett
  • Point 7 – The West Lothian question remaining unresolved. The McKay Commission noted that it created a clear democratic deficit for English voters. And then decided to do nothing about it. In itself, this is a good reason for a fully independent Scotland, to lance the boil of 40 or so Labour MPs from a country that already has its own parliament. In fact, given

    a) the fact that the electorate have already forgotten what Blair and co did to the country
    b) the undemocractic constituence boundaries
    c) the above

    if Labour were not to get in, they’d have to be even more hopeless than they already are.

    • Redshift1

      There’s nothing undemocratic about the constituency boundaries. It’s the Tories own fault they are becoming less and less electable outside their heartlands (where they continue to meaninglessly pile up ridiculous majorities).

      • Yes there is. It has been proven more than once. And of course, Labour heartlands (aka Welfareville) vote Labour even when history shows them constituents that nothing improves under Labour. Which is why so much of Glasgow is still a shitehill.

        • Redshift1

          What do you mean it has been proven? Unless you support a PR system, you can’t regard it as unfair or undemocratic that Labour’s vote (and pool of potential votes) happens to be far better distributed than that of the Tories. The Tories only have themselves to blame for that.

          As for the rest of your offensive rant – actually if you bothered to ask why heartland Labour areas vote Labour then you’d realise that it is because the Tories show exactly the same contempt for them as you’re showing right now. It’s not unfair to suggest it is this attitude itself that leads to the Tories terrible vote distribution.

  • RobShorrock

    Lib Dems will hold up – without Clegg. UKIP vote will wither, apart from in certain areas, where they will win a seat. Labour will probably just get a few more seats than the Tories. Hung Parliament and this time a LibLab coalition,

    • CharleyFarleyFive

      If it’s another hung parliament, don’t be surprised if the existing coalition survives. Either that or some pretty unedifying begging from Labour. However, better the devil you know, I think the LibDems will stick with the Tories.

      • RobShorrock

        Clegg will not survive and it will be a reverse of the ‘ we will, but not with Brown’ offer of 2010. There are few other LDs that will be able to stomach a second term with the Tories. I strongly suspect that Clegg will defect to the Conservatives, as he is unlikely to hold onto his seat in Sheffield.

      • robertcp

        I would also not be surprised if there is another Con-Lib coalition, although there might be defections if that happens.

    • Redshift1

      Even if what you say is true (and there is sod all evidence for this), ‘except for some areas’ with UKIP is a big thing. They are going to have a big impact in places like seaside towns, many of which are labour-tory marginals. If they take more votes off the Tories than Labour then that will be a very big difference.

      • RobShorrock

        I would look at Boston as the UKIP seat. Even if the UKIP cllrs there are slightly deranged, the spirit of xenophobia is strong enough to give Farage what he is desperate for.

        • Redshift1

          UKIP don’t need to actually win seats to hurt the Tories. They just need to take more Tory votes than Labour votes in the marginal seats.

    • Alexsandr

      if the limp dump popular vote fails how is it right they stay in government? Any party that props up a failure like that will never win an election again. That’s why the libdems didn’t join a labour led coalition in 2010, because they didn’t want to reward failure.

    • robertcp

      I hope that you are right.

  • Redrose82

    Sunny has been so wrong in everything he has said in the past that Conservatives should be taking comfort from this article.

  • Namak

    One more point: Labour has an energised presence on the ground, especially in the marginal seats. This will be further enhanced by the local council elections next month. In contrast, the right will be splintering and the Lib Dems are demoralised. In some areas, Lib Dems are losing their sitting councillors and are having difficulty in getting enough candidates.

  • treborc1

    Their you are then I will be helping labour win the next election glad I can be a benefit, with my UKIP vote.

  • Gareth Owen

    Regardless of what is written here, and I agree with a lot of it; when it comes to the crunch, people won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for Ed as PM. Much as I feel sorry for him on that point, he brought it on himself by stabbing his own brother in the back – a character trait that I’m sure the Tories will bring up during the election campaign. If DM was the Labour leader, all of the above points would be moot as Labour would be heading for a landslide.

  • mdj

    How many Muslims will vote for a party led by a self-proclaimed Zionist?

    • MikeHomfray

      Who? David Cameron?

    • robertcp

      I don’t know why don’t you ask some of them?

  • llanystumdwy

    Labour does not deserve to win on reasons such as, the electoral system is biased in their favour. No party deserves to win a majority on 35% of the vote but that is what could happen with the way the seat distribution work in Labour’s favour. That is probably the main reason why they don’t want to talk about what they are going to offer the electorate. Labour has become a party who only seems to exist for power but does not seem to have any ideas about what to do with it, for there are very few major policies to offer that will be different to the other parties. We were told Milliband was going to be bold and radical – and offer a fairer capitalism than the one that failed during his last government days. Not much sign of that to date.

    • Alexwilliamz

      Since when has ‘desert’ had anything to do with winning elections?

  • EricBC

    These are rationalisations not reasons. You are rationalising not reasoning.

  • RAnjeh

    No party has ever won an election by being behind on leadership and the economy. Ukip may decline ahead of the General Election and disappear in some areas. Also, poll leads tend to narrow in the run up before general elections.

    • Alexwilliamz

      Yeah and until last time, there had never been a coalition government. I think we live in interesting times.

      • RAnjeh

        Not sure we do. Reason why we had a hung parliament is because Cameron failed to ‘seal the deal’ with the electorate. It wasn’t because of some huge seismic shift in the politics – the fundamentals remain the same.

  • David Prentice

    Sunny Hundal says it will happen? Lump your house on at PaddyPower that it won’t.

  • Minnooli

    If Sunny says it’s so then it isn’t so. A totally reliable rule for life.

  • Pingback: Labour’s inevitable strategy: A war against attrition | Hopi Sen()

  • Alexsandr

    perpare for labour to lose seats in the locals in May. People will be voting UKIP in the euros, and will probably think ‘f*ck it’ and vote UKIP in the locals too.
    and once they have voted UKIP they are more likely to do it again in 2015

    • treborc1

      That is one hell of a statement to make you know what voters are going to do, I’d get down to the betting shops if I was you.

      I may well vote UKIP in 2015 or Plaid, but the Euros I would not waste my time to cross the dam road to the voting booth.

      • Alexsandr

        so you dont think many voters will see the euros as a referendum on the EU then? Or an opportunity to give Cameron, Clegg and Milliband a bloody nose?

  • Alexsandr

    Hmm. railway renationalisation. how much do you think that will cost. all the train leases, buying out the franchises, and network rail. Where does the cash come for that?
    Fracking. so its better to buy gas from Russia and flakey mid eastern states is it? Thats russia that is being naughty in the Ukraine.
    real living wage.? what will that do for unemployment?

    • ricp

      Network Rail, already owned by the state, Train Operators, leave the franchises to run out when they revert to the state, Rolling Stock, ROSCOs, legislate on teh way they will work. Bringing the Railways under public control is EASY. Think about London; who has finally dissolved the PFI deals for upgading the Underground, BORIS, A TORY!

  • Sterling77

    Wobbly Red Ed Miliband has more chance of winning the Grand National dressed as a pantomime horse than becoming the next Prime Minister.

    • treborc1

      That could be true then again Cameron not much better, it seems we are heading for a car crash of rubbish politicians, which may account for the mess we are in.

    • Alexwilliamz

      I’m sure the bookies would disagree, but that is why they are multi-million pound business and you are, like me, little more than a sad little voice shouting out into the digital wilderness.

  • robertcp

    I think that Sunny and Kellner are both partly right. The Tories might be the biggest party in 2015 but a majority is looking impossible for the reasons suggested above.

  • robertcp

    Ed M did not stab David in the back. They were genuine differences on policy and it was a coincidence that they happen to be brothers..

  • Joe J

    I disagree fundamentally with every single one of these 5 points. And what’s more, I question the motive of the author to write such a piece? Is it to ensure Labour gets complacent and allows the Tories in?
    It also stinks of a 35% strategy.

    Labour has so much work to do between now and 2015 – and my fear is that those at the top will seek comfort in articles like this rather than engage with the likes of Peter Kellner’s much more valuable article. Hope they prove me wrong.

  • treborc1

    Rubbish both Miliband’s were entitled to stand the winner was Ed,simple by getting the most votes even if you take out the Union vote Ed was the clear winner. No such thing as brotherly or sisterly love in politics.

  • Tubby_Isaacs

    Gerald Warner?
    What does he know?

  • gunnerbear

    “….anti fracking…”

    Sorry…no dice….bring on fracking and coal and N-Power. Let’s get the cost of energy in the UK down – right down. I don’t want to see major employers leave due to ‘Green Stupidity’ in terms of high energy costs and ridiculous Green Regulation.

    For example, near where I live a huge employer has been told it must spend hundreds of millions of pounds on ‘green measures’. Thousands of people work on the site directly and tens of thousands of jobs depend on it in the wider economy…..

    …..think it is worth putting all that at risk for some ‘Green ideology’ when the firms major competitors operate in parts of the world where energy is much cheaper and they aren’t hampered by Green idiots trying to wreck a firm.

  • toptophat

    Gerrymandering for a ‘fair share’ of the vote is how they do it in my council area, lab and con keep it nicely stitched up between themselves

  • Ollie MacArthur

    An interesting set of points and the detail is likely to be debated by various interest groups. My jest is that these articles only serve to stoke a dangerous complacency that Labour is somehow destined to win. That is wrong.

  • Pingback: Reality check: Labour is not going to win the next election by a landslide | Liberal Conspiracy()

  • Tom nobomb

    Labour has no chance based on simple arithmetic,the combined right of centre vote exceeds 60 percent,Cameron will engage UKIP in an electoral pact,he would be the complete fool not to and in the end English voters will vote for real Tories ,not the mimicking tory posers like Rachel Reeves and Ed Balls,and Milliband is hopeless.Tory /Ukip in 2015,Labour finished as a political left wing party,New Labour and Blair will have achieved there aim in ending socialism in England,most of them will quite easily sign up to the Tories,Labour in power,hahahaha

x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit