Why Brown should be reeling over Ealing

Times online-comment by William Rees-Mogg

23 July 2007

Last week’s by-election results were satisfactory for Labour, excellent for the Liberal Democrats and a disaster for the Conservatives. That was the almost unanimous verdict of the weekend’s press, except for Alan Watkins in The Independent on Sunday, who warned Gordon Brown against an early election. This general assessment is not likely to be overturned, but it is mistaken. Although Labour held two of its safer seats, these by-election results should be regarded as satisfactory for the Conservatives, excellent for the Lib Dems and very bad for Labour.

The best way to judge by-election results is by the changes in the parties’ share of the votes since the previous general election. On this basis, the Lib Dems plainly did best, and Labour worst. In Ealing, the Lib Dems gained a 3.5 per cent share of the vote and 7.8 in Sedgefield; the Conservatives gained 0.9 per cent in Ealing and 0.1 in Sedgefield. Labour lost 7.2 per cent in Ealing and 14.4 per cent in Sedgefield.

Despite relatively buoyant opinion polls, the Labour Party is still unpopular at the ballot box. If one takes the average of the two by-elections, Labour’s share of the vote has fallen by 10.8 per cent since the general election; the Conservative share has risen by 0.5 per cent and the Lib Dem has risen by 7.8.

The results of by-elections are usually very different from those of subsequent general elections.

Nevertheless, one can use the Rallings and Thrasher guide to calculate the results of a theoretical general election in which the swing of votes matched the by-elections. On that hypothesis, the Conservatives would be the largest party, with 281 seats, Labour would hold 243 seats and the Lib Dems would have 93. From the Conservative point of view that would not be a bad result, but for Labour it would be a disaster.

How could this be? Such a result could arise because the Conservatives are in second place in many more Labour seats than the Lib Dems. If voters switched from Labour to Lib Dem, as they did in both these by-elections, that could reduce the Labour vote below the level of the Conservative. One can see how big this effect could be. In the 100 most marginal Labour seats, all of which could be won on a swing of 6 per cent, the Lib Dems came second in only 13, but the Conservatives came second in 84.

If one adds in the by-election swings, Labour would actually have fallen below the Lib Dem share of the national vote, by 29 to 25 per cent; the Conservatives would have 34 per cent. There are good reasons for thinking that this puts the Lib Dems too high – they are almost always flattered by by-election results. In the two latest opinion polls, the Lib Dem share comes only to 15 per cent. That is almost certainly too low. In mid-term, the Lib Dems are starved of the oxygen of publicity, and almost always record artificially low polling figures.

Mr Brown has to make a decision whether to call a spring election – the autumn seems less likely. He might discount the scale of Labour’s by-election loss in share of votes as normal in safe seats. However, he cannot safely afford to discount the strong appeal of the Lib Dems to Labour voters. In both these by-elections many previously Labour voters must have voted Lib Dem; the Tory share of the vote remained stable in both constituencies. The Lib Dems achieved their good results despite grumbles about their leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, who had a successful campaign. They also overcame the Brown bounce. If one takes the by-elections rather than the opinion polls, an early election would be liable to overturn Labour’s overall majority. Mr Brown will not want to take that risk.

In these by-elections, the Lib Dems did win Labour votes, but did not take votes from the Conservatives. I think this reflects a reality in current opinion. The Conservative vote is probably the most solid – there are certainly a lot of Conservative voters who want to get Labour out; they believe it is time for a change. At the margin, Labour voters are more wobbly, but they may be likely to vote Lib Dem rather than switch straight to the Conservatives. For the present, the Lib Dem opportunity is on the left.

In the Conservative Party, it is not the voters who are panicking but a fringe element of anonymous and unimpressive backbenchers. David Cameron had gone a long way towards making the Conservatives electable. There is no plausible alternative leader, except for William Hague; he enjoys great confidence in the party precisely because he does not want the job. After all, he has experienced what it is like to be Leader of the Opposition and found it to be a bed of thistles. There is no alternative strategy; the Conservatives must stay where the votes are, and that is in the centre.

The Ealing by-election had another significance. The Conservatives used it to make two declarations, that they were genuinely a multiracial party and a London party. These are big assertions, vital for the Tory future. The widespread support for Boris Johnson as the candidate for mayor means that the mayoral election will be a vital prelude to the next general election. It will be a clash of charismatic celebrities. Boris Johnson himself will be the most charismatic Old Etonian to fight a London election since Charles James Fox fought Westminster in 1784. If he defeats Ken Livingstone, that will help to create the momentum for Mr Cameron to win a general election in 2009. Boris is, of course, a high-risk candidate; so was Fox.

As soon as he is selected, Boris Johnson, who is a self-directed missile, will have a big impact on Conservative policy, second only to that of David Cameron. If Boris wants a housing or a police policy for London – as he must – that will shape Conservative housing or police policy nationally. Boris will be a very big figure in his party – and they know it. The Conservative strategy now is to win London next May and then win a general election in 2009. That is the strategy Gordon Brown has to counter.