1 min read
Daniel Finkelstein highlights the recent, staggering - at least at first glance - shift in the polls. He mentions Tim Hames' theory: Last week was the first time where the R word (recession) became real to people - they realised that the UK economy was in trouble and that no one official was attempting to deny it. This changed the atmosphere. I'm sure this is right. It reminds me of my time at the Fabians when, after the Tories' 1992 victory, the polls started to shift dramatically to Labour. The John Smith strategy was to say and do nothing; with the shift in the polls, the argument went, the next election was Labour's to lose so it should keep shtum lest it frighten the horses. Even more deluded was the Smith line that the polls actually reflected his and Labour's popularity.
We pointed out that this was nonsense - the polls were nothing more than a reaction to the economic news. (UPDATE: As a commenter points out, this includes Black Wednesday.) We published an article by Nick Raynsford ('Sleepwalking to oblivion') which argued that saying and doing nothing was a catastrophically stupid strategy. Major had campaigned on the theme of voting Conservative for prosperity. The economic figures more or less immediately after the election showed this was quite wrong. And when the reality of recession hit home, the polls swung. Labour had almost nothing to do with the change in the polls.
In June 1994, Labour was already on 47.9 per cent, and the Tories on 24.9%. Blair realised that the lead was built on sand and took the necessary steps to cement it.
We will never know this, but I am certain that had John Smith remained leader, the economic recovery would have been reflected in a collapse in Labour's poll leads.
Tne issue now is whether a Tory lead again based, as Tim Hames' theory has it, on the reality of recession, is a peak for the party or is able to be turned by Mr Cameron into a foundation.