John Curtice: Crewe is not just an isolated case
Saturday, 24 May 2008
It is easy to exaggerate the significance of individual by-election results. The Liberal Democrat victory in Dunfermline two years ago did not herald the party's revival under Sir Menzies Campbell. The 21-point swing to Labour in Mid-Staffordshire in 1990 was not followed by a Neil Kinnock victory in 1992.
But Crewe is not an isolated pointer. It is the latest addition to a jigsaw that portrays a uniformly bleak picture for Labour. In recent weeks the polls have been putting the Conservatives on average 18 points ahead of Labour, a lead reminiscent of those enjoyed by Labour before its landslide victory in 1997. Three weeks ago Labour recorded its worst local election performance for 40 years, trailing the Conservatives by as much as 20 points.
Now the voters have given the Conservatives a 19 point lead. The tide flowed more firmly in the Conservative direction in Crewe than in any parliamentary by-election since the late 1970s.
The last time the Conservatives secured a 17.6 per cent swing from Labour, as in Crewe, was in March 1977 when Margaret Thatcher snatched Birmingham Stechford from Jim Callaghan's government. In the late Sixties Harold Wilson often suffered heavy by-election losses. As Gordon Brown is now, those Labour governments faced a chill economic wind. Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan suffered defeat at the next general election. The precedents are ominous.
Statistically, losses of support in Brent East and Leicester South in the last parliament were greater than an 18 point drop, yet Labour still won the 2005 election. But it was the Liberal Democrats who benefited from Labour's unpopularity, not the Conservatives. A Tory revival could cost Labour office.
At the heart of Labour's electoral crisis is a lack of confidence in the Government's ability to handle problems. Mr Brown's personal ratings are in freefall. But the public may not simply be unsure about his ability to steer the country; they may no longer want to go in the same direction.
Unpublished data from the National Centre for Social Research show that just over a third now say the Government should increase taxes to improve public services, the lowest level of support for tax increases since the Eighties. In an era of rising prices, voters seem ready to warm to promises of tax cuts. It is hardly a promising climate for a fourth Labour victory.
John Curtice is professor of politics, Strathclyde University
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

I wonder who these people are from The National Centre for
Social Research. Just over 1/3 support increase in taxes? Well now
I reckon if you asked the Question ?
Do you support a Taxation of 75% on Millionaires ---Yes
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0% below £25,000----Yes
"+5% on increments of + £10,000 above " " " Yes
Till £95,000 then 50% above this figure till £999,000 Yes
Now these are Figures which are affordable in the round .
The Tax Credit System can be abolished . Child Benefit for
married Father/Mothers can be of Fixed rate of £50 Week.
One parent must be working with proven NAT .INS N0
Single Parents to be Barred from Future Automatic Housing
It can be paid for by stopping all Nuclear Weapons and
Nuclear Power stations. Ban of Cluster Bombs and a playing
our part in UN without our Veto.
Posted by Jim | 24.05.08, 19:19 GMT
This government is reaping its reward for the cynical abandonment of their 1997 manifesto commitment to a referendum on the introduction of a PR system. If this had been held there would have been a majority in favour of PR. It is astonishing that even a professor of politics does not mention this.
If Labour could now honour their 1997 commitment no party, in 2010, would "win" with a huge unrepresentative majority, as is the rule under FPTP. (Compare the situation in Scotland)
Sadly it is now probably too late to introduce PR (preferably STV) before 2010 even if the stupid party tribalists would allow it. The introduction of AV would however be feasible. It would be an improvement but it is no more proportional than FPTP: it could however be a stepping-stone towards the proportional STV in multi-member constituencies. And it would always be necessary in by-elections. PR obviously does not extend to the election of a single member.
Posted by Joe Patterson | 24.05.08, 11:47 GMT
"How are the mighty fallen" might have been apposite to Blair, but "mighty" could not be applicable to Brown. The Labour Party, not just Brown, has reached the point where the electorate no longer listens to anything said by them. This exactly what happened to the Coalition in Australia over the same period. The lies, spin and deception finally wears down the public until they simply don't want to listen anymore and just vote for the Opposition.
Inadequate as he is as a party leader, it must also be recognized that his ministers must be the worst collection ever assembled - Darling, Balls, Smith, Blears, Harman, Kelly, Browne, Hoon, etc - and would be virtually unemployable by the private sector, when competence, actions and real results are demanded.
Going down the slippery slope after the council elections, he has accelerated to freefall, with a "terminal" conclusion at the end.
Brown's PMQs are entertaining, but only for the awfulness of his embarrassingly inadequate responses.
Posted by Padraig O'Ryan | 24.05.08, 04:30 GMT
I think the Liberal Democrats at Henley will bring Cameron back to earth with a bump. The Conservatives have such a mountain to climb, it is unlikely they will do it in one election.
Posted by mike35 | 24.05.08, 01:29 GMT