The Wit and Wisdom of... Anthony King

I think that the problem the Labour party has is, that for a quarter of a century, it was dominated by the left, it was associated with the loony left, associated with the trade unions, with inflation, with strikes, with the Winter of Discontent. And the Tories were right all along, it turns out, when they said to themselves that, at the last minute, when voters saw the whites of Labour's eyes, they said to themselves 'we cannot have those people in government.'

Anthony King, Professor of Government at Essex University, on BBC One, in the early hours April 10th 1992, as Labour went down to a fourth straight election defeat.

Labour's polling recovery is not enough to save it

I've started to notice a really irritating trend on my Facebook recently. People trying to point out that during the election campaign, Labour's share in the opinion polls has risen.


There a couple of problems with this fact. Firstly, opinion pollsters in this country have traditionally over-rated Labour. In the last thirty years, for example, the margin of error between Labour's eve of poll rating and their actual vote share has been on average 3.2% points:

1987- Final polling day average of 33.5%. They won 30.8%, so a gap of 2.7% points.
1992- Final day polling average 39.3%. They won 34.4%, so a gap of 4.9% points.
1997- Final day polling average of 45.3%. They won 43.2%, so a gap of 2.1% points.
2001- Final day poll put Labour on 47%. They won 40.7%, so a gap of 6.3% points.
2005- Final day poll put Labour on 38%. They took 35.3%, so a gap of 2.7% points.
2010- Final day polling average of 27.6%. They took 29%, so an underestimate of 1.4% points.
2015- Final day polling average of 33.0%. They took 30.4%, so a gap of 2.6% points.

Only once have the opinion pollsters underestimated Labour's vote share. Every other time, it has been overstated. This has led to some embarrassing mis-predictions. In 1987, the BBC forecast from their polling that Mrs Thatcher's majority would be cut from 145 to 20; she got a majority of 101. In 2015, Ed Miliband was as stunned as the rest of us at his defeat. And most famously of all, in 1992, all the opinion polls missed a late surge in Tory support, at Labour's expense. Even in the exit polls, voters wouldn't admit to voting for John Major, and so the predicted hung parliament never materialised, and Labour went down to a record fourth election defeat.

The problem here is that, even with a current polling average of 32%, Labour are likely to do slightly worse than that on the day itself. They could do significantly worse, especially if Theresa May and the Brexit deal are activating a case of 'Shy Toryism.' Nothing the opinion pollsters have done with their methodology has managed to correct this flaw, yet.

The second problem with Labour's rise in the polls is that they are not alone. Since the campaign started, another party has enjoyed a polling bounce. The Conservatives. The collapse of UKIP support, from the low teens down to below 5%, has seen those voters largely migrate to the Conservatives. The Tories are looking at taking nearly half the vote. I'll be amazed if they don't take above 45%, a feat last achieved by Ted Heath in 1970 (Incidentally, the last Conservative leader to stand with a clear commitment to changing Britain's relationship with Europe, although Heath is doubtless turning in his grave at what is going on).

It is highly likely that this government will get the best electoral mandate of any UK political party since the 1960s or 1950s. When he added 0.8% points onto the Tory vote share in 2015, Cameron was lauded as an electoral wizard. And he had presided over five years of dull but effective government (at least for his supporters). God knows what that makes Theresa May, who has achieved this surge in support whilst presiding over the upending of half a century of foreign policy, amidst an extremely divisive and inflammatory atmosphere.

Even if both party vote shares are rising, the Tories are still miles ahead of Labour. Whereas a share of 32% for Labour would be pretty decent, and enable them to hold a Conservative party on 35%-37% to a virtual tie, a rise as high as 35% would be utterly meaningless when the Conservatives have gobbled up nearly half the electorate. Some Labour candidates may gain ground and lose their seats simultaneously, even sitting MPs. But Labour's boats will not be raised by the tide when there's a tidal wave sweeping through the harbour at the same time.

And I'm not even going to engage with the idea that if Corbyn matches Miliband's vote share he should stay. That would tear Labour apart. But that's for another day.

So, sorry to disappoint, people who seem to think that Labour getting to 32% in the opinion polls is something to get excited about. It should be, and I'm glad they're doing a bit better. But there is an avalanche coming down the mountain towards us. Don't kid yourself your snowman will reduce you from it.

Edward Heath, entering Downing Street as Prime Minister, June 1970. Theresa May, who was 13 at the time, may be about to be the first PM since then to be elected with more than 45% of the vote.

1974, 1983, and 2017: A Tale of Three Manifestos

In 1983, Labour was fighting for its political life. It was riven by splits between the hard-left quasi Marxists and the centre-left social democrats. Two years earlier, a fair chunk of the centre-left bloc had left Labour entirely, forming a new Social Democratic Party. The SDP, in alliance with the Liberals, were snapping at Labour's heels. And confronting them both was Margaret Thatcher. Written off in 1981 as the Prime Minister who had presided over economic catastrophe and social collapse, by 1983 she was riding victory in the Falklands, and belated economic recovery, to a victory of her own.

Amidst this crisis for Labour, came the day when they needed to decide what was going to go into the election manifesto. Instead of being a protracted fight, the party leadership decided to adopt the various policy documents produced over the last few years and just put them together. What they got was a document which promised a drastic break from the Britain of the early Eighties. It proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from the European Economic Community and NATO, the imposition of exchange controls, the creation of a 'siege economy' (whereby British jobs and firms would be protected by the state against external markets, the abolition of the House of Lords, renationalisation of BT, shipping and aerospace companies, and the reunification of Ireland against Unionist wishes.

It had nearly been worse. Until the last minute, it contained a policy on the regulation and inspection of puppy farms.

Roy Hattersley, a leading figure on the centre of the party, was one of those appalled by the document. He went to see the head of the NEC, and demanded to know what the hell they were playing at, nodding this through. The party official replied grimly, that this was (leading left-winger) Tony Benn's election, and so it would be fought on his terms.

The strange thing is, it wasn't even the most left-wing Labour manifesto ever. In February 1974, Labour went before the electorate promising to impose price and pay controls, allow workers a huge say in how their companies operated, vast nationalisations, including the top 100 companies, and:

Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families.

Eliminate poverty wherever it exists in Britain, and commit ourselves to a substantial increase in our contribution to fight poverty abroad.

On polling day 1983 Labour slumped to it's worst result since it had become a truly national party. It's 209 seats (to Mrs Thatcher's 397 seats) hid the terrifying reality that Labour had only taken 27.6% of the vote, a mere 2% ahead of the Liberal/SDP Alliance. It could have been worse; some Labour figures feared if the election had carried on for another week, they would have come third. Many Labour voters told the party they had voted for the party despite the programme, not because of it. The manifesto was already known as 'the longest suicide note' in history, a name given to it by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman.

By comparison, the election of February 1974 produced a much less clear result. Labour won 301 seats, to the Tory's 297; confusingly, the Conservatives polled 200,000 more votes than Labour. Both were well short of the winning post of 318, and in a fractured Parliament, neither party was able to cobble together a coalition. Harold Wilson formed a minority government, and struggled on until the autumn, when he won a narrow election victory on a more nuanced programme.

So why has 1983 gone down as the 'longest suicide note in history,' and not 1974? Probably because of the result. In 1983, Labour crashed to a catastrophic defeat. In February 1974, they got into government, although this masked their tumbling vote share and underlying electoral problems. How 2017's manifest will be judged by history is unknowable until the voters have delivered their verdict on June 9th.

But if the effect of 1983's manifesto was intended by some to show the hard-left a lesson, then it worked. This grim strategy had nearly destroyed the Labour party, but it had taken the hard-left with it. Most importantly of all, Tony Benn had been ousted from his Bristol seat, preventing him from standing in the leadership election. The slow process of rescuing Labour as a party of power began. But those ideas were beyond the pale. Many of them were actually brought in by New Labour in 1997-2010. But they didn't shout about it. My fear is that, by tying all of these ideas, many of which are a left-wing dream, to Cornyn's electoral prospects, his team are pushing them out of contention yet again.

Oh, and at 124 pages, 2017's manifesto is a bit longer than the 39 pages of the 'longest suicide note in history.'

Vote the Liberal Elite, Not The Fascist!

Back in November, I wrote that the United States of America had to undergo a long, dark night of the soul, as it faced the wait to find out whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was to become president. That dark night has since transformed into a living nightmare for the United States.

Yet all of that could be a picnic in comparison to what could happen this weekend. The French are undergoing a presidential election which is more like an existential crisis than a dark night of the soul. On Sunday, the electorate faces a choice between Emmanuel Macron, a former Socialist economy minister and investment banker turned independent centrist, and Marine Le Pen, leading a 'reformed' version of the Front National, a political party founded by former Nazi collaborators, Holocaust deniers, and those who wanted France to keep hold of Algeria by whatever means necessary.

The French political spectrum is in chaos, with neither of the two 'main' political parties having made the run off round of voting. Les Republicains have been punished for the scandals of the nominee, Francois Fillon. And the Parti Socialiste is paying for the troubled presidency of Francois Hollande; the wound is possibly fatal. France has economically stagnated for years, and faces deep and chronic social and cultural fissures. Elections at moments like these can be defining.

However, this should not be a hard choice. One of the two in the final round is a fascist, no matter how they dress it up. The other is not. Even if you disagree profoundly with Macron's programme, as many in France do, when confronted with a ballot paper showing only a fascistic and a non-fascistic option, there can only be one choice. Those on the French hard-left who are unable to stomach Macron are playing with fire in choosing Le Pen.

In 2002, a splintered voting scene saw Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine's father, ease into the second round against Jacques Chirac. The result was extraordinary. 'Vote the crook, not the fascist,' was the left's rallying cry. The cordon sanitaire held, and Chirac destroyed Le Pen in a landslide, as voters from the centre-left and hard-left flocked to his candidacy. They didn't do so because they were enthused by another five years of Gaullist right. They did so because they realised that to put the Front National into power would be profoundly damaging to themselves, France, and the rest of Europe.

An anti Le Pen rally, 2002

I am not going to predict what will happen tomorrow. A look back on this blog will confirm that I've been caught on the wrong side of reality once too often to feel comfortable doing that. But I really hope that tomorrow the French electorate consign Marine Le Pen to the scrap heap, and send the Front National back into the pit it came from. The slogan 'Vote the liberal minded former economy minister and investment banker, not the fascist!' may not have the same ring to it, but I hope it is what the French people think as they go into the polls tomorrow.

Things did get better; don't try and pretend otherwise

I clearly remember my friend John being very worried. He was warning as many people as he could that, because of it all, we were going to have to work much harder than before. I have to admit, he got me worried. After all, I had no idea what the word labour meant. It could mean work, for all I knew. I was seven.

And then it turned out all ok. As the No More School Party swept to power in our class election. No surprises really. I can't even remember who else was on the ballot. Or, in fact, if Mrs McGregor even counted the votes. But I do remember having the result whispered in my ear, to announce to the whole of my Yr 2 class. I made a fine returning officer, if I say so myself.

Oh, and it was sunny. But then, don't your memories of childhood always seem sunnier in comparison?

That's it. That's what I remember about the general election of 1997. I was way too young to realise that, around the country, a political earthquake was taking place. In 1992, there'd been talk that Labour may never hold office again. But within five years, the situation was completely different. Labour won 418 seats, and led the Tories by 12.5 percentage points. A Labour majority of 179. The Conservative party destroyed, slumped to its worst election defeat since 1832. Tony Blair later admitted that he felt he had done something wrong, so great was the scale of the electoral slaughter of his opponents.

I don't want this to turn into a retrospective analysis on the whole New Labour government. I did one of those, a long time ago. Go and read that (and laugh at me in my student years). I'm not sure I still agree with bits of it, but overall it holds up fine.

No, what I want to say today is a couple of things. Firstly, the Blair and Brown governments were the most redistributive in British history. No government before them took as much money from the top and gave it to those at the bottom. They should have shouted more about it, they should have pointed it out again and again and again. That they didn't is a crying shame, but they had their reason, a fear of being defeated. By avoiding defeat, the Blair/Brown governments managed to sustain this improvement in the lives of working people, until the financial crash knocked them off course and set the kaleidoscope in motion.

But for those of you who say there's no difference between a Labour government and a Conservative government, wake up and grow up. There is patently a difference. There is all the difference in the world. If the purpose of the Labour party is to ensure a Labour government in office that can improve the lives of working people, then 1997-2010 were indeed good and productive years, all the rest of it aside.

Lastly, is the point that always terrifies me. As the polling stations opened on that sunny May morning, twenty years ago today, millions of 18-23 year olds went to cast their ballots for the first time. None of them had known a Labour government within their memories. The last Labour government had fallen in March 1979, brought down in a vote of no-confidence on the floor of the House of Commons. The last Labour election victory had been in October 1974. Many of those first time voters hadn't been born then. A handful had lived every day of their lives under a Conservative administration.

At a time when Labour is staring into the abyss of electoral wipeout, more akin to 1931 than 1983, it is a sobering thought that the voters who may one day end the Conservative regime are at most 12 years old. The youngest are six or seven. We may have a long way to go again until there is another new dawn, until the same sense of optimism and hope propels the left back into power in this country.

And I hope it will be sunny.