I asked (post of 19 May) whether Theresa May had saved the Labour party by calling the election before the Corbynistas could complete their entryism project by de-selecting moderate Labour MPs. As I should have realised, my theory was far too complex. After all, I often say it's cock up rather than conspiracy and that certainly fits here. With several opinion polls showing their lead closing to within the margin of error (usually quoted as three percentage points - but they've got it more wrong than that on occasion!) have the Tories cocked up? Have they done "ready, fire, aim" and shot themselves in the foot?
They have certainly run a lacklustre campaign, offering only blood, sweat and tears according to one commentator and certainly little in the way of hope. "Strong and stable" became trying to stay upright in a screeching handbrake turn over the care costs cap, but as they haven't said what the cap would be we don't know which way they are facing at the end of the manoeuvre.
But the polls are still showing a range of numbers for the Tory lead, ranging from 1.1% to 11% on the most recently published (makes you wonder if someone can't do decimals, doesn't it?) but averaging about 6-8%. In most campaigns the politicians talk about things being volatile but this is normally tosh - there is usually very little movement after the gun has been fired. But not this time if we believe the trend of all the polls: Labour has strengthened considerably through the campaign despite, or because of, a "dumb, snake oil" economic manifesto (see my post of 19 May).
In practice, of course, it was the Tory manifesto that turned out to be really dumb: why on earth did they feel the need to be so specific about their care plan, branded the "dementia tax" by their opponents even though it isn't either. Parties that expect to win comfortably have the luxury of being a bit vague - accusations of lack of detail don't hurt them if the electorate trust them, which is where the Tories started the campaign. A motherhood sentence on the lines of "We will establish a fairer system for funding care in care homes and at home which takes due regard of ability to pay, protecting vulnerable people's home ownership and inter-generational fairness" would have sufficed. As long as what they then do in government is indeed fair, reasonable and done quickly they have plenty of chance to explain it and let people come to terms with it. After all, Labour have one sentence in their manifesto (it's on page 86 if you want to check) on what has become known as their "garden tax":
"We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term."
It has taken the Tories until the last few days to pick up on this and claim that it would force up council tax bills by thousands of pounds for many people - far too late to make Labour come out of the long grass on what could be a very significant change which they would undoubtedly claim a mandate for.
One reason given for Labour's apparent surge is that lots of young folk have registered to vote, but the numbers are said to be overstated: many had forgotten they were already registered. D'Oh! And although many of these youngsters say they support Labour, the stats show that the biggest increase in voter registration is in safe Labour seats, so they might just pile up larger majorities there.
The polling companies have changed their models since the last general election and the referendum and they will presumably be watching the election result nervously. I read that one polling company is assuming a higher turn out by younger voters - as high as 82%. Given their propensity for getting it wrong, this seems a brave assumption, especially since only 43% of under 25s voted in 2015 and many couldn't be arsed voting in the referendum. Nevertheless, the changed models, which have sought to rectify the persistent under-estimation of the Tory vote (think 1992, 2010, 2015), represent a major doubt. It would be interesting to know how the parties' internal polling compares. The Tories aren't in total panic, so I guess their polls must show a larger gap than the narrower end of the publicised polls. Some commentators are still predicting a significant Tory win, which would put further egg on the faces of the pollsters.
The Tories shouldn't take comfort from the referendum result or the Trump win. Labour's positioning as pro-Brexit but wanting to ensure a sensible deal backed by Parliament seems to me to have hit a good note with a lot of the electorate - it has certainly worked better than the LibDem 2nd referendum policy. But perhaps more significantly, Corbyn is the anti-elite, anti-establishment candidate in this election.
Nevertheless, the best measure of how people will vote is usually reflected by their rating of the party leaders. Last time Cameron rated higher than his party and the same is also true for May. With both faced by opponents who rate badly with public, this has always pointed to a comfortable Tory win. Indeed, at the start of the campaign, less than half of Labour voters thought Corbyn would make the best PM. But May's standing has been damaged by her U-turn - we'll see whether fatally.
Whatever, Corbyn has had a good campaign and has got more and more comfortable in his skin. The Labour machine has got in gear and their spokesmen have proved adept at producing platitudes in response to the many hostages to fortune Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott have left for the press and their opponents over so many years. I've found it surprising how apparently successful these non denials have been. An increased share of the vote compared with Ed Mil looks quite likely and would presumably mean Corbyn keeps his job. Who knows what this would mean for the future of Labour, though internecine strife seems likely to be resumed unless they start to look like a government in waiting.
An increase in the Tory majority from 2015 and Corbyn still across the despatch box from them seems entirely likely - and that would feel like a good result for most Tories, after the squeaky bum time since they published their manifesto and it all went downhill. Whether they would deserve it is another matter. But a thin Tory majority looks possible and it wouldn't surprise me to go through another election night like 1992 and 2015 with the exit polls saying "Tories largest party but no overall majority" only for there to be a Tory majority when we get up. No overall majority would make May's gamble look as suicidal as Cameron's referendum call, would make the Brexit negotiations even more difficult and would probably mean another election - and maybe another EU referendum - within 2 years. We would be in even more uncertain times and having a General Election or referendum could become an annual event - I doubt many would be happy at that prospect!
Almost time to place your final bets. I've always thought that the bookies were at least as good a forecaster as the pollsters and note that Paddy Power are currently offering 16/1 against a Labour majority, 4/1 against Corbyn as the next PM, 1/4 on for a Conservative majority and 3/1 against no overall majority. Those odds on Corbyn must be a lot shorter than a few weeks ago.
Oh, and also almost time to place your vote, unless you are under 25 in which case - can you be bothered? Whatever......just don't complain about the result if you don't!
No comments:
Post a Comment