Cameron’s Policies

Here’s an interesting little statistical nugget from Aaronovitch:


The report also looked at the public perception of differences between the
parties. It showed that that the greatest distinctions were seen in the
elections of 1964, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 (all but one being Labour
defeats) and the smallest in 1970, 1997, 2001 and 2005 (all but one being
Labour victories). By and large the greater the difference, the larger the
Tory majority.

That would seem to indicate that the current policy of turning the Tories into New Labour Light is in fact the wrong thing to be doing.

4 responses

  1. Tim,
    I think you draw an inference from this that is invalid. You assume that it is the perceived gap between the parties that is the key element.
    More likely it is the absolute positioning of the parties relative to a perceived centre ground. It’s like the ice cream vendors on a beach model. If there are two vendors, the best place for them to position themselves for maximum (and equal) overall sales is for each to be one third the way from each end of the beach as it puts them within easiest reach of the maximum number of customers. However, in the case of political parties, their aim is to get as many votes as they can and to deprive their opponents of votes – not to maximise the total votes cast.
    So the first vendor (political party) positions themself right in the middle of the beach and then the only position for the second vendor to adopt is right next to the first vendor. It’s not the best arrangement for customers or total sales, but as soon as one vendor moves from the centre, they reduce the number of customers withing easy reach compared to their competitor.
    The Conservatives have always been fairly ‘centre ground’ but have, in the public perception moved away from it somewhat at times – and that is where Labour have moved to the centre ground and achieved just enough votes to beat them. However, Labour have been much more prone to move way over to one side of the beach (remember Michael Foot, etc.) and this is when the Tories have won comfortably.
    So Cameron is trying, in the public perception, to move the Tories to the centre ground. That is all he can do to maximise his votes. He can’t make Labour move away from it. The govt. may be incompetent, but they are perceived as moderate and ‘centrist’ (which is why so much of their own left wing is unhappy).
    So Cameron’s strategy is sound. Move to the centre ground and then hope to win on other factors such as perceived competence and ‘niceness’.
    It’s very depressing, and it would be good to see politicians trying to change the shape of the beach, but that doesn’t mean that Cameron’s plan isn’t sensible.

  2. Things are complex and can’t be boiled down to just a few metrics (as New Labour are discovering).

  3. “I think you draw an inference from this that is invalid. You assume that it is the perceived gap between the parties that is the key element.”
    Absolutely. I can promise that if the Conservatives suddenly came out espousing a profound belief in the proposition that the earth is flat that would make them distinctively different from all other mainstream political parties in Britain, including the Labour Party. But I sincerely doubt they would be elected to government.

  4. ‘By and large the greater the difference, the larger the Tory majority.
    That would seem to indicate that the current policy of turning the Tories into New Labour Light is in fact the wrong thing to be doing.’
    Surprisingly bizarre non-sequitur. Not least given Labours direction of travel since, and exactly because of, these big defeats.
    Are you suggesting that wherever Labour place themselves Conservative party must triangulate Clinton like into a new area. Labour espouse free-enterprise, Conservatives must be different? Labour welfare to work, Cons something else??

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading