Oct 05 2007
Suggested Labour response to PM’s request for more information about Elections
To: Prime Minister
From: Senior Political Adviser
I understand from private office that you need more information before making up your mind concerning the General Election. In particular you have asked to be reminded of the historical record of different timings and results of elections.
I have been over the dates and results of elections for the last 60 years. The record shows that a Prime Minister is most likely to win by going after four years. Thatcher did this twice, and so did Tony. No-one has lost at around the four year mark.
Going after more than three years but before the four year mark produced one defeat - Heath in Feburary 1974 - and one victory - Eden in May 1955.
Running on to the end or near the end of the 5 year term has usually ended in tears. Douglas-Home,Jim Callaghan, and John Major (1997) all lost doing this. Only John Major in 1992 managed to keep a majority in the House, but a much reduced one.
Going early if you do not have a working majority worked for Harold Wilson twice, in 1966 and 1974.
No-one has tried going after two and half years when they have a good working majority.
History also reminds us that both Harold Wilson in 1970 and Heath in 1974 were confident they could win. The polls supported their view.
I think the verdict of history is inconclusive, but if anything it reinforces my advice. Electors accept the need for a government with a good majority to renew it once four years have passed, but are sceptical before four years and usually out of love with the government if the PM feels he needs to run right to the end of term.I think the best date is May 2009. By then the Constitution will be through, the US economy should be responding to lower interest rates, and we should have put floods and foot and mouth out of memory. My warning that the polls are very volatile has proved to be timely, as we see from the recent batch of polls, with one suggesting the Tories are now level with us. No Prime Minister ever willingly holds an election without a good poll lead. Please put the MPs in the marginals out of their misery quickly, before election fever does more damage.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
I was shocked to read a report by Prof. Michael Thrasher that indicated the level of support for each party required to have a majority in the house of commons.
He stated that even with a 1% Conservative lead over Labour, Labour would still be the largest party in the house. If the Labour had a 1% lead, then they would have an overall majority of 22. In order for the Conservative Party to have an overall majority in the house, we would need an 11% lead.
John is this down to manipulation of boundaries by the government or something else?
I know that Mr Blair only had 23% of the electorate vote for him and that still gave him a huge working majority in the house which allowed him to put unpopular and knee jerk legislation through. This also means that 77% of the electorate did not vote for him and his party. Hardly a mandate in my view. What are your thoughts? Do we need electoral reform? Should we implement proportional representation as the Liberals advocate?
Should we stick with first past the post or some sort of hybrid system?
Reply: There is no evidence that proportional representation encourages more to vote, as the Welsh and Scottish elections illustrate.
There are two main problems. The first is that in recent elections too many people have disliked all parties and have abstained. Each of the main parties has to try to tackle this disillusion with national party politics. That was the topic of my last book, “I want to make a difference”, which contaiend an agenda for change.
The second is the boundaries, which have given Labour a lot of help. In 2005 Conservatives polled more votes than Labour in England but got 93 fewer MPs. This boundary review we are told will give the Conservatives 18 more seats overall for the same vote, so it helps a bit.
[Reply]