Labour’s victory in yesterday’s by-election in Oldham East and Saddleworth will be a much-welcome tonic for Ed Miliband as his leadership of the party passes the 100-day mark. But does new MP Debbie Abrahams’ win carry the risk of lulling the party into a false sense of security after its annus horribilis of 2010?
It’s true, of course, that Oldham East and Saddleworth is by no means a ‘traditional’ Labour seat. Even during the early Blair years, when the party was sweeping all before it electorally, Labour never polled more than 42 per cent of the vote in the seat, and the predecessor seat, Littleborough and Saddleworth consistently returned Tory MPs from its creation in 1983 until the Liberal Democrats’ victory there in a by-election in 1995. And, yes, this week’s polls show Labour’s national poll lead extending to a comfortable eight per cent.
2011 will, furthermore, see other big gains for the party at the ballot box in May’s local elections, and the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament elections – contests which were all last fought in 2007 during the difficult closing days of Tony Blair’s premiership.
But the likely outcome of these elections, together with a poll lead which is likely to grow as the full impact of the government’s public spending cuts and tax increases begin to bite, could end up disguising the scale of the challenge Labour faces if it’s to have a shot at returning to power in four years’ time.
Indeed, the scale of Labour’s defeat last year is still not fully appreciated in some quarters, in part thanks to the party’s recovery in the polls. The party has, for instance, only four MPs in the south-east and there are 31 local authorities with no Labour councillors. And this situation is replicated – or indeed worse – in England’s south-west and eastern regions. The party’s parlous state in parts of the country is closely related to the ‘hidden landslide’ which occurred last May in the seats Labour lost in 2005: in every one of those held by a Tory MP, the incumbent increased his or her majority and share of the vote. Nine of them, in fact, now have majorities in excess of 10,000. In six of these seats, Labour actually came third. Winning back some of them would require a greater swing to the party in the next election than occurred in either 1945 or 1997. Although there are a handful of exceptions, the pattern is clear: Labour did twice as badly in the seats it lost to the Tories in 2005 than it did everywhere else. Labour should not bank, therefore, on the apparent marginality of many of the seats it lost in 2010: if, and it’s a big if, the story of 2005 to 2010 pattern were to be repeated, the party would be in big trouble.
But history suggests it might just be: in every postwar election when Labour has been ejected from office, its share of the vote – and, other than in 1974, its number of seats – has fallen in the following election.
The experience of the 1980s is perhaps worth recalling here. During that time, Labour repeatedly built up strong poll leads, celebrated handsome midterm local election victories, and racked up some impressive by-election wins before crashing to defeat in the subsequent general election.
Indeed, this week’s eight-point poll lead is identical to that Labour had in January 1980 – and, despite the internal ructions it underwent during Margaret Thatcher’s first term, it still managed to win by-election victories in seats like Birmingham Northfield and Darlington – both fought in the months after the Tories’ Falklands-inspired poll recovery – only to lose them at the following general election.
Labour’s current opinion poll lead is also not as impressive as the headline figures suggest. The party’s gains, for instance, have come almost entirely from disaffected Liberal Democrats, while the overwhelming number of people who voted Tory in May say they would do so again. Ed Miliband’s ratings are somewhat anaemic (although the comparisons with David Cameron’s early months aren’t entirely black and white: Miliband’s approval ratings are similar to Cameron’s at this point in his leadership, but his negative ratings are higher, which may simply be due to the polarised political atmosphere). And, perhaps predictably, the Tories have an overwhelming lead on the perception that they’re willing to take tough and unpopular decisions. Thus while the cuts are increasingly seen as unfair, the majority of people – 52 per cent – still think they’re necessary. Most critically of all, although the number of people disapproving of the government’s handling of the economy is rising, the Tories still lead comfortably when people are asked to compare them with Labour on this issue.
So where does this leave the new Labour leader as he contemplates his party’s prospects this year? Ephemeral by-election gains, midterm contests and opinion poll leads may cheer his supporters, but they don’t win elections. Instead, his critical challenge is restore Labour’s reputation for economic competence. That means not simply relying on the government’s reputation to sink – particularly as the economic picture in four years’ time may be very different from today – but embarking on a repair job which needs to be just as radical and far reaching as that which occurred in the mid-1990s. Does Miliband understand this? The shadow cabinet’s decision this week to endorse his strategy of admitting that Labour erred in government by not facing up to the need to talk about cuts is a start. But it is just a start and the ultimate fate of his leadership – whether he joins the very small collection of Labour Opposition leaders who make it to No 10 – will be decided by the degree to which he recognises that.
This is a rather grudging statement of the obvious, which Ed Miliband is fully aware of (as evidenced by his post by-election comments). I think a little more enthusiasm would be in order, even if Philpot would have preferred the elder Miliband to be at the helm, as I did.
So what needs to happen in May? The Lib Dems wiped off most Councils and, therefore, losing all that they hold? The Tories only gaining by default with Labour and the minor Parties being the biggest gainers? Or will people be unable to afford to go to the polls?
sooooo,if you buy something like errrm,a bank say,or some banks, then you have to sell something like um um um ,the post office,the NHS,schools,universities,public housing, public services, have I got that right ?
…and 450m.worth of statins that weren’t really needed?
I mean how much wealth has been diverted to the Pharmaceutical erm,coffers from the tax put in to the NHS ? 10 years wasn’t it before GSK gave up the patent for the retro-virals to help aids sufferers in the third world,wasn’t it ? a company that behaves like that will do anything. To be real as I don’t have stats ….my elderly mother I discovered had 7 bottles of Oromorph beside her bed which she and the mice were drinking at will .Her life had suddenly changed after years spent in Spain and we had not realised at first.She was also taking codein. I now have care helpers going in to her three times a day ,she is off the morphine (which took some doing I can tell you,as I am no expert but I’ve had two kids and you just sort of have to be a human judge of what feels right,fight the doctor etc) most of her symptoms were caused by the morphine and mentally she is really bright again,yes she has some problems but also real quality of life again,her pain felt worse because she had become depressed.I took the Oromorph into the hospital,the sister took it,they were having a review of medication and trying an experiment with a synthetic morphine on virtually all the old people in the ward ( my mum had had a fall but was ok) I feel the elderly are really in danger at the moment,my mum could not get up if someone did not come in to help her,I think it would finish her to leave her home ,and that in care homes ‘clients’ could easily become over medicated as that would make less work (I mean no offence to all the wonderful care workers like the ones I have encountered.
and actually there are people talking on the radio now about disabled childcare being ” crisis led” not the way the 6th.largest economy (are we) should be organizing to assist these natural sad occurrences. The rich pay for private healthcare , schools etc so I imagine resent their tax being used as charity for the ordinary people. When I had asked the GP about my mother he said I remember ” we just wait for the next crisis”.
right, so the Care Quality Commission raises concern today revealed. WATER for one thing, so very important because the meds cause chronic constipation ,pretty basic huh.
Peter Hay (Association Directors of Adult Social Services) says this morning that 80% Councils are “holding or increasing” payments,well not West Sussex – my mum’s care allowance just been cut by £66 per week. The young woman who came to reassess was very sorry indeed you could see that, and has done her best to state mum’s case.