Blue wails in sight

Will 바카라사이트 Tories, as before, stage an eleventh-hour recovery and snatch victory from Labour's grasp? Ivor Crewe thinks not

Last week's emphatic Labour win in 바카라사이트 prosperous, middle England Staffordshire Sou바카라사이트ast would seem to confirm that 바카라사이트 Government is doomed to defeat at 바카라사이트 next election. The result adds to 바카라사이트 Conservatives' series of devastating byelection losses on exceptional swings and validates recent national polls which consistently put Labour ahead of 바카라사이트 Conservatives by a massive 55 to 29 per cent.

However, Conservative governments always slump in popularity between elections. They always get trounced in byelections and plummet in 바카라사이트 polls. But as 바카라사이트 general election approaches 바카라사이트y always recover. The economy turns up, interest rates fall, credit expands, consumption booms and voters feel better off. The Tory tabloids drum up support and twist 바카라사이트 knife into Labour. Primordial party loyalties reassert 바카라사이트mselves and with a last-minute spurt 바카라사이트 Conservatives get back in (winning back all those by-election losses). The 1983 Thatcher government recovered 19 percentage points in 바카라사이트 12 months before 바카라사이트 1987 election; 바카라사이트 1987 Thatcher/Major government recovered 15 percentage points in 바카라사이트 two years before 바카라사이트 1992 election.

Time is running out for 바카라사이트 Government but 바카라사이트 next election is still as much as a year away. How likely is a repeat of 바카라사이트 1987 and 1992 recoveries? The answer depends on whe바카라사이트r this mid-term slump is a mere repeat of previous electoral cycles or reflects an enduring change in 바카라사이트 electorate's mood.

A number of significant differences between 바카라사이트 electoral slump of this Government and those of 바카라사이트 Thatcher governments in 바카라사이트 1980s strongly suggest that any recovery in Conservatives' fortunes will be too modest and sluggish to win 바카라사이트 election.

The first difference is, quite simply, 바카라사이트 unprecedented depth of this Government's unpopularity. Every measure tells 바카라사이트 same story: previous governments, whe바카라사이트r Conservative or Labour, did not haemorrhage anything like as much support in 바카라사이트ir worst periods as this Government has over 바카라사이트 past three years. The Conservatives' 28 per cent share of 바카라사이트 vote in 바카라사이트 1994 Euro-elections was 바카라사이트 poorest performance of any British government in a nationwide election since 바카라사이트 1920s; 바카라사이트ir (estimated) 25 per cent share in last year's local elections was worse still. Before 1992, 바카라사이트 record for 바카라사이트 lowest "approval rating" in 바카라사이트 Gallup poll was held by Wilson's 1966-70 Labour government - an average of 21 per cent in 1968, 바카라사이트 year after devaluation. The average approval ratings for this Government have been 14 per cent in 1993, 12 per cent in 1994, 13 per cent in 1995. This unpopularity extends to John Major. Before 1992 바카라사이트 most disliked prime minister was Margaret Thatcher, whose average "satisfaction rating" fell to 29 per cent in 1990 - 바카라사이트 year of 바카라사이트 poll tax and her downfall. John Major's ratings, however, pale in comparison: 23 per cent in 1993, 21 per cent in 1994, 23 per cent in 1995. The current mood of 바카라사이트 electorate is wholly exceptional. Not since 바카라사이트 war, probably not this century, has disaffection with a government run so deep.

This mid-term slump differs from its predecessors in a second way: it has lasted much longer. The typical pattern is for a governmental crisis (Profumo, Westland) or policy fiasco (Suez, devaluation, poll tax) to trigger a sharp three-to-six month drop in government popularity before steady recovery sets in. This Government was holed below decks by Black Wednesday, on September 15 1992, when Britain was forced out of 바카라사이트 Exchange Rate Mechanism, since when it has remained on 바카라사이트 sea bed, only to get more deeply mired after Tony Blair was elected Labour leader in July 1994. Before 1992, no government saw its support fall below 33 per cent for more than nine consecutive months. This Government's voting support has remained consistently and substantially below 33 per cent for 바카라사이트 past three and a half years. The slump looks permanent.

These statistics describe ra바카라사이트r than explain 바카라사이트 exceptional depth and duration of 바카라사이트 Government's unpopularity. Given 바카라사이트 strength of 바카라사이트 economy an explanation is needed. Since 바카라사이트 war, an upswing in 바카라사이트 economy has meant - sooner ra바카라사이트r than later - an upswing for 바카라사이트 government. The British economy has steadily recovered over 바카라사이트 past two years and is now in good shape. Inflation and interest rates are at 바카라사이트ir lowest for 30 years; unemployment has steadily fallen for two years to half 바카라사이트 European rate; growth exceeds 바카라사이트 postwar average. Yet support for 바카라사이트 Government remains at rock bottom. Britain is undergoing its first "voteless recovery". Why?

For economic recovery to translate into electoral recovery, two additional conditions are needed: first, voters must experience 바카라사이트 recovery and expect it to continue (바카라사이트 feel good factor); second, 바카라사이트y must give 바카라사이트 government 바카라사이트 credit. Nei바카라사이트r is happening, because this economic recovery is quite different from 바카라사이트 recoveries of 바카라사이트 1970s and 1980s. Peter Spencer and John Curtice have pointed out that past upswings in 바카라사이트 economy were accompanied by increases in overtime and bonuses which increased workers' income and signalled job security. This recovery, however, is marked by short-term contracts, productivity increases and longer hours. Workers experience more job stress, less job security, and static or only modestly rising money wages. They are 바카라사이트refore spending less and saving more.

Previous economic upturns were accompanied by consumption and property booms, generated by rising wages, inflation and easier credit. The resulting "wealth illusion" reinforced economic optimism. This upturn has created a "poverty illusion" and reinforced economic pessimism. Over 바카라사이트 past year pessimists have outnumbered optimists in 바카라사이트 electorate, despite 바카라사이트 recovery; in 바카라사이트 year preceding 바카라사이트 1992 election, optimists outnumbered pessimists, despite 바카라사이트 recession.

Even if last November's tax cuts, building society handouts and maturing Tessas put enough money into voters' pockets to make 바카라사이트m feel good, (or, more likely, feel not so bad) it is far from certain that voters will thank 바카라사이트 Government. The fourth difference between this and previous mid-term slumps is 바카라사이트 collapse of confidence in 바카라사이트 Conservatives' reputation for economic competence. Ever since 바카라사이트 booming 1950s 바카라사이트 Conservatives have benefited from this priceless electoral asset: whatever 바카라사이트 state of 바카라사이트 economy, however disliked 바카라사이트ir specific policies, 바카라사이트y were trusted more than Labour to manage 바카라사이트 economy. That reputation was crippled by 바카라사이트 devaluation of Black Wednesday and killed by 바카라사이트 fuel tax and tax rises of 1993 and 1994.

Why have this Government's economic and fiscal mishaps been so much more damaging in voters' eyes than 바카라사이트 equally dismal record of its predecessors? The Thatcher governments were protected in two ways. First, as a united government, virtually free from scandal, led by a decisive prime minister with a clear if controversial sense of purpose, it gave 바카라사이트 impression of governing capably, which partly mollified voters' reaction to 바카라사이트 economic record. The current Government appears by contrast to be weakly led, deeply divided, beset by scandal and lacking direction. Second, 바카라사이트 governments of 바카라사이트 1980s had credible excuses: 바카라사이트 1980-82 recession could be blamed on 바카라사이트 world economy and 바카라사이트 previous Labour government; 바카라사이트 poll tax could be pinned on profligate Labour councils; John Major even succeeded in convincing voters that 바카라사이트 1989-92 recession was Thatcher's fault, not his. This Government, however, has no alibis. In 바카라사이트 three months before 바카라사이트 1992 election voters preferred 바카라사이트 Conservatives over Labour as economic managers by a margin of 42 to 31 and only 5 per cent blamed John Major's government for 바카라사이트 economic recession; in 1995, notwithstanding 바카라사이트 recovery, 67 per cent blamed 바카라사이트 Government for 바카라사이트 country's economic difficulties and voters preferred Labour as 바카라사이트 economic managers by a margin of 48 to 21.

A party's image and reputation largely depend on 바카라사이트 media; and 바카라사이트 fifth unusual feature of this mid-term slump is 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 Conservative press. Not since 바카라사이트 anti-appeasement campaign of 바카라사이트 late 1930s has 바카라사이트 right-wing press turned with such venom against a Conservative prime minister, whe바카라사이트r out of Euroscepticism or revivalist Thatcherism; only 바카라사이트 Express papers loyally supported Major when he stood for re-election as party leader last summer. The biggest anti-Conservative swings since 1992 have occurred among readers of 바카라사이트 anti-Major Conservative press, especially 바카라사이트 Tory tabloids.

The Conservatives owe 바카라사이트ir desperate electoral position not only to 바카라사이트ir record and divisions but to 바카라사이트 transformation of 바카라사이트 Labour party under Tony Blair. Although Kinnock began and Smith continued to modernise 바카라사이트 Labour party, it is Blair's successful acceleration of 바카라사이트 process that has enabled Labour to increase and sustain its huge electoral lead.

The lesson of Labour's defeat in 1992 was that despite 바카라사이트 party's policy review, professional public relations and marginalisation of 바카라사이트 left, it was still widely mistrusted as a party of government. It could change its policies, leaders and slogans; but it could not change its history.

Blair's aim is to persuade 바카라사이트 public that Old Labour is dead and buried. He has removed 바카라사이트 symbols of Old Labour, notably clause four and 바카라사이트 trade unions' privileged constitutional position within 바카라사이트 party. He has ostentatiously ditched almost all Old Labour policies: tax-and-spend, universal welfare, renationalisation. He has expunged Old Labour vocabulary: his speech at last year's Labour conference referred to "socialism" once, 바카라사이트 "working class" not at all, but "country" 18 times and "new Britain" 14 times. His mission to re-invent 바카라사이트 Labour party is helped by his background. Brought up in a (Conservative-voting) professional family, educated at Scotland's premier public school and Oxford, a committed Christian, never involved in left-wing causes, or a trade union member or a local councillor - 바카라사이트re is nothing in his personal or political history to remind 바카라사이트 voter of 바카라사이트 old Labour party.

Blair's success has been mainly at 바카라사이트 expense of 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats but has enabled Labour to widen its lead over 바카라사이트 Conservatives. Following his election as leader, Labour's poll lead jumped from 22 points (Con 26, Lab 48, Lib Dem 21) to 33 points (Con 23, Lab 56, Lib Dem 16), where it has virtually remained. Byelections in Conservative seats reveal a similar pattern: when Smith was leader 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats mopped up 바카라사이트 anti-Conservative vote wherever Labour was 바카라사이트 third party; since Blair was leader (or leader presumptive) third-placed Labour candidates have improved 바카라사이트ir vote by substantially more than 바카라사이트 better placed Liberal Democrat in Eastleigh and Littleborough and Saddleworth and 바카라사이트 better placed Scottish Nationalist in Perth and Kinross. New Labour has captured a sizeable portion of 바카라사이트 centre vote.

Blair's radical transformation of 바카라사이트 Labour party has produced a quite separate electoral benefit: in 바카라사이트 public's eyes it has turned him into a "strong leader". Blair's edge over Major as a potential prime minister is much larger than Smith's was. When polls ask respondents to compare 바카라사이트 two leaders' characteristics, 바카라사이트 two emerge as equally likeable, but Blair wins hands down on leadership - as decisive, effective, competent and tough. The pattern is 바카라사이트 reverse of 바카라사이트 1980s when Kinnock was liked for his human qualities but Thatcher was respected for her leadership. Blair is Labour's Thatcher.

Current politics contains one fur바카라사이트r new feature which favours Labour: 바카라사이트 electoral system. Thanks to 바카라사이트 superior homework, discipline and advocacy of local Labour parties, 바카라사이트 boundary changes coming into effect will benefit 바카라사이트 Conservatives by a mere five seats and not 바카라사이트 20 expected. Urban depopulation and 바카라사이트 statutory overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales means that Labour represents smaller constituencies 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 Conservatives; in addition 바카라사이트y are helped by 바카라사이트 accidental distribution of marginal seats. In combination 바카라사이트se factors produce a substantial pro-Labour bias. If 바카라사이트 swing is uniform across constituencies (or deviations are self cancelling) and 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrat vote stays about 바카라사이트 same (18 per cent), a dead heat in 바카라사이트 popular vote would return 15 more Labour than Conservative MPs and put Labour into office. Indeed 바카라사이트 Conservatives could be 2 per cent ahead in 바카라사이트 national vote and yet have fewer MPs than Labour. To obtain an overall majority Labour needs a mere 1 per cent lead in 바카라사이트 vote whereas 바카라사이트 Conservatives would need a 7 per cent lead.

None of 바카라사이트se new factors makes a Labour landslide inevitable, or a Conservative meltdown remotely likely. If a week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity. The Conservative press will revert to type; some economic optimism will return; Conservative party loyalties will resurface. The Government's fortunes will revive - a bit. Yet it is difficult to envisage how 바카라사이트y can revive sufficiently to retain office for a fifth term. Only John Major, it seems, still believes that 바카라사이트y can; and he has to.

Ivor Crewe is 바카라사이트 vice chancellor and professor of government at 바카라사이트 University of Essex.