[Jamie Martin]
Speaking on This Week’s review of the political year, Vince Cable rounded off a discussion on the government’s hopes of an upturn in its fortunes by asserting that “what will really make the difference is whether the economy goes off the boil”. Similarly, the Financial Times’s Philip Stephens completed his analysis of Labour’s problems by concluding “Things will get tougher in 2008. Mr Brown… [cannot] expect the voters to applaud him for weak house prices and uncertain employment prospects.” These knowledgeable commentators are voicing an age-old theory: governments are rewarded for strong economies and punished for bad ones.
It is a theory which holds little water historically. The Conservatives in 1997 fought an election on the basis of the soundest economy in a generation. They lost by a landslide. They had previously (in 1983 and 1992) won two clear majorities during recessions. In 1964 and 1970 governments were ousted amidst benign economic circumstances. In the rougher times of 1978/79 the government maintained popularity during an economic downturn. It was a clear failure of competence and authority in respect of the unions which led to Labour’s defeat.
Fast forward to the present, and we have a government struggling, despite growth of 3.1% last year. Will an economic downturn augment Labour’s woes and seal Gordon Brown’s fate? The evidence indicates it will in fact be the reverse. A poll of polls currently places the Conservatives around ten points ahead.
On questions regarding the party best able to handle the economy, however, they hold either a small lead or no lead at all. This indicates that the more important the economy becomes as an issue, the narrower their overall lead will be. Furthermore, for all Brown’s troubles late last year, he still leads Cameron on qualities like ‘courage’ ‘strength’ and ‘ability to handle a crisis’. This, coupled with his exceptional experience (and perceived good record) as Chancellor, would make a powerful combination in any election during economic difficulty.
The 1992 election saw a new Prime Minister seeking his first, but his party’s fourth, term, against an inexperienced opposition who trailed the government on economic competence despite headline poll leads. A recession was decisive; decisive in ensuring the re-election of a government who convinced the electorate now was not the time to risk an untested opposition. The next general election will pit ‘strength and competence’ against ‘time for a change’. In 2008 Gordon Brown needs to re-assert both the importance of, and his association with, the former. An economic downturn will be a valuable ally in doing just that.
