Recovery position

History suggests that the government's current difficulties do not make defeat at the next election inevitable

A senior minister observed privately: ‘There is an atmosphere of quiet resignation and utter defeatism in the party. One feels it everywhere, a growing sense that whatever happens there is no time before the election to get into a boom, even to get any distance away from failure, and no time to be a successful government.’

One feels that it could have been more or less anyone in the current cabinet, but before speculation runs riot I should say that these were the thoughts of Richard Crossman in December 1968. Labour were 26 points behind in the polls, the party had been given a drubbing in the council elections and byelections, its organisation was in decay and only 17 per cent of the electorate approved of the government’s record. How times change.

Within 18 months Labour led in the polls, the fatalism had been dispelled and expectations had turned round to such an extent that Harold Wilson succumbed to excessive optimism and called an election. Although Labour went on to lose the June 1970 election, in what is still the most surprising result in recent electoral history, it was a close-run thing.

Mid-term troughs of despair and pessimism are therefore nothing new in politics. The table overleaf gives a rough picture of how far down governments have gone in the polls, and the extent of their recovery before the general election.

We have recently had a run of parliaments that have not conformed to the model. John Major’s 1992-97 government never really recovered, and Tony Blair’s two full parliaments saw unusually short and shallow periods of unpopularity. The mid-term blues are now back with a vengeance, particularly since the budget last March. But is this back to the old pattern, where governments bounced back (although not necessarily strongly enough to win re-election) or a repeat of the terminal decline of the last Conservative government?

For now, one can deal with the more optimistic scenario for Labour, that although things seem bleak, they have done so before under governments that either went on to be re-elected (1957, 1981, 1990), miss narrowly (1963, 1968-69) or pass up an opportunity to be the largest party in a hung parliament or win (1976-77). The size of the task now is comparable with several past occasions. What have these governments done to start their political recoveries?

The common element in several of them is an economic recovery. Most of these political slumps have come alongside economic downturns. In 1958-59, 1962-64, 1969-70, 1977-78 and 1981-83 government economic policy eased off, allowing in the various cases recovery, boom times, consumer spending and rising real wages. Government popularity surged back in each case. Gordon Brown needs the downturn to be short and shallow, and visibly coming to an end by the time of the general election.

In some of these cases there was a retrospective re-evaluation of the previous difficult times, with 1981 being the prime case. By 1983 the economy was growing again, inflation falling fast and real wages were rising, and the recession could be looked at as a painful but necessary episode of modernisation and getting inflation out of the system. The Brown government has a problem in that the current downturn does not seem to have any redeeming features, or at least the government is failing to articulate what the sacrifices are for and what they will achieve.

Harold Macmillan’s famous remark about ‘events, dear boy, events’ is quoted too much, but unfortunately there is – sometimes – no alternative. A government which responds sure-footedly to sudden crises, and emerges in control of a difficult situation, will gain support and respect. This applies even if previous ineptitude was a partial cause of the events. In 1981 Margaret Thatcher was reviled as stubborn, uncaring and pig-headed, but after the Falklands she was celebrated for strength and determination. There is no way to predict ‘events’ but the ability to respond to the terrorist attack in Glasgow and the various events of summer 2007 was part of the reason for the initial Brown honeymoon.

A good conference can do a certain amount to at least change the mood, and enable a government to renew itself in office. In 1986 a new set of policies in the shape of public service reform and more radical privatisation emerged from the Conservative conference, and dispelled the sense of a government running out of ideas and out of steam. In 1969 Labour managed, after two years of appalling divisions, to put on a show of unity and purpose that saw the party’s confidence returning. Labour needs a good show in 2008, including a strong speech from the prime minister. This is possible even for unpopular prime ministers such as Wilson and early Thatcher (‘the lady’s not for turning’ was in 1980).

This leads in turn to the vexed issue of whether a leadership change can accomplish a reversal of fortune. The evidence of the initial months of Brown’s leadership, and the transition from Thatcher to Major in 1990, suggests that it can, although the economic and political fundamentals will assert themselves before too long. A leadership change per se is a short-term boost, but if the new leader can add something to the party’s appeal, then it can result in more lasting improvement. There are two options for a leadership change facing Labour. One is to choose a leader who can add something – a new sense of direction, much superior campaigning skills, or a tone that connects with contemporary society – and give him or her some time. The other is to make the change after recovery has started, shortly before the general election, and capitalise on the honeymoon. But past prime ministers have also been able to achieve upswings – Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Thatcher all had 25-point recoveries in their personal ratings.

Whatever Labour does this conference, history suggests that the Tory tide needs to start ebbing soon. In past parliaments where there has been a strong recovery, the low point has usually been a little before the parliament reaches its three-year mark, and the upswing is quite steep.

To think about a decent result in 2010, Labour needs to be getting back up into the mid-30s in the polls in the next six months or so (or cross its collective fingers and hope for ‘events’ and a historically unprecedented late surge). A more modest Tory lead of 6-12 points at that stage would not be too awful for Labour, as it would make the next election start to seem competitive again. This is a realistic target for a party coming out of the conference season with some attractive policies and a decision either way about whether to back or sack its leader. But it is still difficult, given that the economy is heading in the wrong direction and there are few if any examples of a government improving its fortunes at this stage of the economic cycle. An economic recovery setting in by mid-2009, some further scrutiny of the Conservatives, a period of competent government without too many blunders – while it is hard to see Labour clambering back to a majority, this might be enough for a minority government.

Lewis Baston is director of research at the Electoral Reform Society

17 Sep 2008 14:51

 

Comments

• Posted by John Gray on 18 September 2008, 7:35:10 PM

  What an excellent article – there is so much defeatist nonsense being peddled about at the moment... and we call the Tories the “Stupid Party”

• Posted by Warren Morgan on 20 September 2008, 1:49:04 PM

  There is certainly much in the records of past governments to give grounds for optimism, as well as in the relatively low ratings David Cameron has in comparison to Tony Blair in 1995-1997. Public opinions of the Conservatives generally have not improved vastly since 1995 either. There is still a large group of voters who are sympathetic to Labour but not currently willing to state to pollsters they will vote for them. What remains to be seen is the effect of recent events in the US and UK economies and how the Prime Minister and Government have reacted to them. Conference will be key as well, but perhaps the biggest obstacle will be the "media narrative". As has been said, the media hunt as a pack, are vastly more competitive that they were even ten or fifteen years ago, and the 24 hour news channels and internet amplify and hasten the impact of events. They will be looking for further evidence of splits and defeatism at conference, and are not yet ready to turn their focus on Cameron or his party whilst an apparent desire to tear down the Labour government pervades.