History says 'Labour's history'

 

Andrew Hawkins

 

email

print

Also in this section:

• Enough said

• Debate: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

GOOD: Douglas Murray; BAD: Sunny Hundal

• Yes he can, no he can't

Tim Shipman

Novelist George Santayana was credited with the aphorism 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. But sometimes historical patterns cannot be avoided.

 

Much ink has been spilled over the parallels between 1997 and 2008. Unfortunately, commentators who ought to know better are prone to paying febrile attention to modest poll swings – which are usually explained by temporary factors.

 

There are, as ever, some notable exceptions to this caution. One occurred in the autumn of 2007. Within the space of two months, Labour's average monthly poll lead went dramatically into reverse. A seven per cent Labour lead in September 2007 had, by December of that year, turned into an average Conservative monthly poll lead of almost 9 per cent. But mostly the changes in a party's fortunes are much harder to spot because they take place over tectonic timescales.

 

So we need to look at the long-term pattern and, to help analyse Labour's long term fortunes, my research group ComRes has calculated the party's average lead in every published poll since 1997. This is shown above. To demonstrate the gradient of decline in Labour's popularity, we added a mathematical 'best fit' line, as well as the actual general election results in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

 

You don't need a statistician to tell you from this that Labour support has been in long-term decline. It must be depressing for any new government: enjoy the moment when you get elected because, despite the odd exception, it's usually downhill from here. In Labour's case the gradient of decline has been remarkably stable. When we end the monthly average poll series in 2001 and instead treat the linear average as a predictor of the years of Labour's administration, they end up at almost the same place in 2010 – 20 points behind.

 

Also working to Labour's disadvantage is that the average monthly polls consistently exaggerate Labour's lead. These are not eve-of-election polls, which were much closer to the eventual results, but the average over the months in which the elections took place. The gap between each election and the monthly poll averages lends credence to what Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com describes as the golden rule – the poll showing the lowest Labour vote share is probably the most accurate one. Perhaps it was this chart that Gordon Brown had in mind when he was thinking about calling an election in September 2007. The gradient, and therefore the difficulty in reversing it, suggests that 2007 was his last best chance before 2010 to get a majority, and that the longer he leaves it, the harder it will be.

But is it really inevitable that governments run out of steam? Political parties are clearly aware of the danger, which explains the jargon bandied about when they realise they're heading for defeat. When you see the words 'policy renewal' it is usually a sure sign they are heading for trouble.

 

This tendency for government popularity to degenerate over the long term has been codified by academics. In one recent analysis, Dr Timothy Heppell of Leeds University identified six symptoms of degeneration by looking closely at Conservative governments in the 1960s and 1990s (The Degenerative Tendencies of Long-Serving Governments...1963...1996...2008? Parliamentary Affairs Vol, 61 No. 4).

 

The symptoms he identified are:

• declining perceptions of governing competence;
• worsening leadership credibility;
• emergence of internal divisions;
• perceptions of sleaze;
• inability to shake off responsibility for past policy failures ('time for a change'); and
• development of a credible opposition.

 

Dr Heppell's analysis, predicated on events at the turn of 2007/2008, argues that Labour "has not matched the scale of governing degeneration that afflicted the Conservatives in 1963 and 1996". However, he goes on to suggest that, for Labour to reach the lows experienced by the Conservatives in 1963 or 1996, there would need to be an interaction of two factors.

 

One of these, the need for the Tories to have a 'Clause Four moment', has arguably been overtaken by events. The Conservatives don't need a Clause Four moment, having been 20 points ahead in the polls in 2008 and having successfully detoxified their brand in the eyes of many.

 

But Dr Heppell's second criterion for Labour's degeneration will send a chill down the spine of every Labour activist. It is that "Labour would need to experience an economic implosion".

 

Gordon Brown has always polled very well on his experience and ability in a crisis. By contrast, David Cameron polls well on being likeable and caring. When the economic dust has settled and the public are plodding their way down the long path to a slow recovery, it seems difficult to believe they will want a clunking fist rather than empathy.

 

The journalist and social commentator Paul Valery said that history is the science of what never happens twice. Gordon Brown will be praying that he's right.

 

Andrew Hawkins is chief executive of ComRes