If you were in a good mood this morning...
...then don't read
Peter Oborne's column
if you are a Tory. Actually do, it makes for some scary reading but the truth hurts:Indeed, according to John Maloney of Exeter University, the Tories must secure a 10 per cent lead over Labour to win an overall majority of just one seat at the next election. In other words David Cameron faces a very high mountain to climb. The most astute Conservative strategists are keenly aware of this problem, as is Cameron himself.Oh dear.
An internal Tory Party document sets out the scale of the problem, stating baldly: 'The Conservatives have never won a General Election from a starting point as weak as they face now.'
The paper calculates that to win a majority, the Conservatives must hold every seat they won in 2005, plus an additional 117 constituencies. To put that in perspective, Margaret Thatcher notched up an additional 63 seats in 1979 for the Tories, while Edward Heath made 69 gains in 1970.
The Tory briefing note sums up the problem as follows: 'To become Prime Minister, David Cameron must surpass the electoral achievements of both Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.'
Only once before have Conservatives made gains of the scale that Cameron requires to obtain an overall majority after the election. But that was in the exceptional circumstances of the National Government of 1931, when the Labour Party had split in two.
But most crucially, Cameron is well aware that a simple overall majority would not be enough for him to govern effectively. Instead, he needs a working majority of at least 30 seats (which means a majority of 15 per cent over Labour on election day).
Posts
14 comments:
Entirely not surprised. Labour have spent over a decade cynically Gerrymandering boundaries and introducing measures to favour their supporters in the polls.
I don't think it will be enough to save them.
This isn't actually the case:
https://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/11/mountaintoclimb.html
And when you now allow for the inevitable defection of all true Eurosceptics to UKIP or BNP, then Welching Dave would seem to have even less chance than "Boom & Bust" Broon.
Oborne's article has been dismissed by those over at politicalbetting on the basis that he knows nowt about opinion polls.
Oborne says: For almost all of 1996, Blair's Labour Party enjoyed a poll rating of well over 50 per cent, while its advantage over the Tories was consistently in double figures.
This polling comparison has been shown to be a myth on numerous occasions by Mike Smithson, in fact one of the latest posts says this on Labour's 97 polling leads:
As has been frequently pointed out, not least on this site, the methodology used in polling has changed significantly since 1997. Only ICM can be compared on a like-for-like basis, and using that sequence, the Tories’ lead is very close to where Labour was at the same time in the parliament - in the mid- to high-teens. Laughably, Sky’s Poll Tracker - linked in the article - gives the May 1997 Labour figure as 59%. Labour actually polled about 43% at the general election that month.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/14/is-michael-thrasher-right-about-a-hung-parliament/
Do you think replace one left wing statist with another will make any difference?
iDave promises to ring fence NHS spending, SureStart spending and overseas aid. He's spent years strutting his green creds. Oh yeah, and the Lisbon Treaty promise - that wnet so well.
The issue of the lead is misleading if it is based on "then" vs "now" ie 1997 vs 2010.
Also, the seats are not for the Tories to win, they are for Labour to lose.
The Brown mini-revival is being talked up, but I can't see why. Some sympathy over being kicked by the Sun and keeping an ultra-safe Labour seat do not herald a revival.
Cameron is damaging his own chances by the recent announcement on the EU/Referendum.
He should have held a Referendum - so that, armed with the result, he could start negotiating with the EU.
He has lost many votes - including mine - to UKIP.
Jesus, Mr Obourne is extremely slow on the up take here, i heard about this academic work just under one year ago.
....and not a mention of the BNP - yet.
I am surprised at the number of tory voters that I know who are seriously considering giving their vote to the BNP.
They say that they don't want a BNP government, but they would rather vote that way than vote for Cameron, and more of the same old, same old.
They have a point, perhaps.
This line is being peddled furiously by CCHQ to make everyone work harder. The bare facts are true. But it's not as gloomy than they make out.
Labour are unpopular - who on earth wants Brown as PM in 2015?
The electorate are more fickle than they used to be.
Tactical voting is unwinding.
The Conservatives have learned how to campaign locally - Labour have forgotten.
The funding disparity between the local party's is greater than it has ever been before.
Cameron is disproportionately popular in the marginals. And Brown is disproportionately loathed in the the marginals.
The economy is totally Fcuked. And everyone blames Gordon.
I have to admit, was somewhat of a surprise to see my lecturer's name appear on TB!
If only we had proportional representation...
"An internal party document"?! What a joke - this line has been attached to hundreds of widely distributed party emails for months. Not to mention that Eric Pickles has talked about it plenty of times with regard to the election.
I'll never vote BluLabour led by the "heir to blair":
BNP
UKIP
or nobody