Some elections are predictable (The Conservatives' triumph
in 1983 and Labour's in 1997 are two cases in point), whereas others are unpredictable
(The Conservatives' narrow victory in 1992, and the last election that produced
the Con-Lib coalition are two cases in point). Next year's election in 2015 is
more like the former than the latter - it seems likely that Labour will win the
most seats (and I say that with a huge frown). The only thing in the balance is
whether they obtain a majority or not.
The reason Labour will win is not much to do with any of
their political qualities. In fact, I've argued before that this is perhaps the
worst bunch of party politicians I've ever seen in this country - Ed Miliband, Ed
Balls, Douglas Alexander, Tristam Hunt, Chuka Umunna, Caroline Flint, Sadiq
Khan, Emily Thornberry and Margarat Curran, to name just some of the worst of
the frontbenchers. Others like Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves, Vernon Coaker, Liz
Kendall and Jon Cruddas aren't quite such insufferable characters, but by association
they still carry around the same stench of counterfactual party politics.
The only possible way the party could be worse right now is
if Diane Abbott had won her leadership campaign in 2010. In fact, consigning
Abbott to the backbenches is about the only credible thing this current bunch
of leftist buffoons have done since their shadow cabinet inception.
Some may argue that the 1970s Labour party was worse than
this bunch - but I don't tend to agree; they had more of an excuse back then in
that the economic left was nowhere near as discredited as it is now.
If the worst bunch of party politicians I've ever seen
can be succesful in obtaining enough seats for government, one ought to ask how
on earth such a thing can happen. My perception of the political landscape is
that the conditions that have led to Labour's imminent success are principally down
to a three factors, and that's aside from the constituency border biases that
favour Labour.
Firstly, the Conservatives are far less popular than
Labour with ethnic minority voters - and with the mass influx of immigration in
the past 20 years, there are more Labour voters in that demographic (the cynic
in me suggests that that's why Labour weren't too upset at underestimating the
rate of immigration by a huge number). In 2001, one in ten voters were ethnic
minority voters. By 2050, it is forecasted that ethnic minority voters will
constitute one in five of the population. With many ethnic minority voters
spreading into what used to be Tory safe seats, it is a change that the Conservatives
are probably going to have trouble coping with.
Secondly, UKIP is attracting lots of Tories who are fed
up with the way Cameron's party has leant so far to the left. For good or ill,
issues such as immigration, the EU and same-sex marriage have divided the
right, and UKIP's rhetoric is just the sort of music to which the far right
Tories have pledged their allegiance. To put it bluntly, UKIP is the
Conservative Party that many Tories used to vote for. Just as the slightly more
right-leaning SDP handed Thatcher two substantive majorities in the eighties by
splitting the left, the Tory defectors to UKIP look likely to hand victory to
Ed Miliband's Labour Party in 2015.
Thirdly, and in the converse to the last observation, the
Left are assembling a pretty unified body of opposition at the moment. Don't
misunderstand, it's a ramshackle of half-truths and falsehoods, but it's a
pretty unified ramshackle for those that have been duped by it. With the death
of some of the hard left fringe groups, and with the disenchanted Liberal Democrats
decamping to Labour, Ed Miliband's party has been reaping the benefits.
So not only will next year probably see in power the lowest standard of politicians
in living memory - it will be yet another, but even more extreme example, of
how you don't need to do well in politics, you only need to do less-bad than
those in opposition to you, or in Labour's case, be a receptacle for other parties' disenchanted voters.
