OpinionApr 10 2015

I’m calling a ‘late break’ for the Tories

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
I’m calling a ‘late break’ for the Tories
comment-speech

So that’s it. Pension freedoms are finally here, the dust has settled on the Budget, parliament has formally been dissolved.

There’s nothing for it now but to start looking forward to the election.

I’d assiduously avoided writing about this in any depth until what could be called the proper ‘campaign’ was definitively in full swing. New fixed-term parliaments have left us with an interminable ‘phoney war’ that has persisted since at least the summer of last year.

I’ve also avoided committing thoughts to print because what opinions I have managed to form on the respective party policies are confused, contradictory and of little use to me in determining my voting choice as I’m sure they’d prove to you, dear reader.

However, I am repeatedly being asked what I think will happen on 7 May and I have begun to settle on a firm prediction in response. At the risk of being made to look a fool (very likely), I thought I’d share with you where I’m putting my metaphorical money in order to kick off the debate here proper.

I’m calling a ‘late break’ for the Tories, who will end up as the largest party in another hung parliament and leading a coalition not dissimilar from our current administration.

This election is one of the most ideologically charged in years. Voters are faced with a genuine choice between leftist redistribution and spending targeting a broadly defined notion of inequality; and small-state, low-tax entrepreneurialism with a dash of social conservatism.

It is this polarisation, rather than a nebulous (and nonsensical) perception that all politicians are all ‘the same’ that is confounding an electorate used to political battles in the comfortable centre ground.

This election is one of the most ideologically charged in years

It is also vexing the psephologists, who proved at the Scottish referendum that they are far more adept at tracking voter idealism than they are hard, pragmatic reality.

Remember 1992? I barely do (I was seven) but I do have vivid recollections of Neil Kinnock’s triumphalism in the lead up to the poll giving way to eventual, unexpected failure as the uninspiring John Major secured a slim majority.

Kinnock was thwarted by an insecure electorate, which held its nose and supported an unfashionable Tory incumbent amid fears over a fragile economy. Sound familiar?

Then as now Labour went into the election pledging to tax higher earners, invest in the economy and generally right perceived economic wrongs. Voters were too scared to buy into the vision. Then as now the Tories asked to be judged on a positive, but by no means perfect, economic record.

The coalition argument on the economy is statistically formidable, especially on jobs. Even the contention that this has not fed through to the bottom line for most is shifting as a result of plummeting inflation and (extremely) belated wage growth.

I remain convinced that most of our ongoing economic malaise - for example devastatingly low productivity - is sentiment driven. A ‘fear’ election favours the Tories.

Moreover, despite the bluster you’ll hear from representatives of the great unwashed on the likes of Question Time, I think most people also accept that ‘austerity’ is necessary and deficit reduction the key issue for the next parliament.

Labour will always win a few hearts and minds with legitimate attacks on the concentration on particular groups, but ultimately a perception of competence should favour Cameron and Co.

That’s the general picture. The pollsters are better at what they do than in 1992 and they’re probably right that a hung parliament is all but assured: it’s a numbers game.

Labour is likely to lose the bulk of its 41 seats north of the border (all but four if a poll in the Times this morning is to be believed). Given that it only won 217 seats in England and Wales last time, it’d probably need 70-odd gains to form even a workable ‘alliance’ with the SNP.

I just don’t see it - and a majority is beyond fanciful.

The Tories on the other hand are defending 308 seats, 299 of which are in England. Even accounting for the fly in the ointment of a truculent UKIP vote, with a late surge I reckon they’ll hold most and pick up a few to offset any marginal losses.

They need a partner and the only amenable ‘major’ party are the Lib Dems, who might also surprise on the upside in non-student towns where their ground operation is famously effective.

If the two need a few seats for Commons comfort they’ll surely find an ally in the Northern Irish DUP, which would support anyone willing to offering a concession on corporation tax to which George Osborne has already intimated he is open.

There is plenty of time for all of this to change - and the Tories’ proved with some ugly politics yesterday that they could yet self implode in a pique of their own stereotypical ‘nastyness’.

But I’d still suggest now that the most likely outcome is that we’ll have some form of consistency for the next parliament. And I could live with that.

ashley.wassall@ft.com