Portillo thinks Brown is a good bet to win next General Election

"Despite the opinion polls, it is hard to see how the Tories are going to win. Brown looks a good bet for the next election. He may not secure an overall majority, but he should survive in Downing Street."

That's Michael Portillo's conclusion in today's Sunday Times.  The former Tory Cabinet minister identifies two key reasons for his prediction: (1) an inadequate Tory team, and (2) a lack of appeal to aspirational or working class voters:

"Today’s Tory team lacks strength in depth. George Osborne is good but not yet weighty. David Davis is substantial, but is not part of Cameron’s project to transform the party. David Willetts and Oliver Letwin lack any sort of common touch. There is no Campbell or Mandelson. There is no Norman Tebbit either. The Conservatives have yet to find a person or a device to attract back the working-class voters who were an essential part of Thatcher’s winning coalition... The Tories are searching for some other idea that appeals to voters who aspire to do better for themselves: a modern equivalent of Thatcher’s policy of selling council houses to their tenants. But after years of thinking, no good idea has come to the Tory mind."

The one thing that Mr Portillo does think could come to the rescue of the Tories is the economy:

"If I were the chancellor, I would fear the economy more than the Tories.  The downturn in the United States, led by falling house prices, is ominous. Now that is really significant, because economic weather regularly moves across the Atlantic. Maybe we can forecast, after all, that June 2010 will be dark and squally."

Michael Portillo might be right to worry about the US economy but there is no automatic guarantee that the Tories will be trusted to lead Britain out of a recession.  Although the Tories are - according to some polling - more trusted on the economy than Labour it is a result of a fall in support for Brown; not a rise in confidence in George Osborne's team.  A recession may give Brown the opportunity to persuade the electorate that this is not a time to take risks with an untried economic team: hold on to nurse for fear of something worse.

Comments

[601]

MICHEAL PORTILLOS STRATEGY SEEMS TO BE LOSE FIRST AND THAN WIN, LATER.

[Arthurian Legend]

I think that Portillo is right, in the sense of Brown's Labour Party gaining more seats than the Conservatives next time around. However, I think they are almost bound to lose 40-50 seats to us and to the Lib Dumbs, making Brown the leader of the largest minority.

On the issue of Brown's command of detail which Portillo noted, it's odd that that is such a perpetual refrain of this and other commentators, when the marginal rate of taxation for many on state welfare and approaching state pensionable age is in excess of 70%. That always strikes me as the dumbest move of Brown's reign (in a closely packed field) in terms of economic understanding and competence.

[Dave Bartlett]

I think Mr Portillo's political atenna needs adjustment.

[Alex Forsyth]

I never cared much for Portillo, but his intelligence is undeniable.

I have always said that Cameron's poll "success" is a bubble fuelled in small part - true enough - by his "new boy" status, but in much larger part by sheer uncertainty about Labour's future course.

One of the biggest mistakes we are currently making is to turn the party into a virtual one-man band, entirely dependent on the insubstantial personality and non-existent policies of "Dave"

[David Cooper]

Michael Portillo justifies his conclusion primarily by reference to Tory vulnerability over cash for peerages (surely, however, best to let the investigation proceed, especially given other very recent developments) and support for the war ("you lied to us, Mr Blair" still ought to carry considerable weight).

In the context of his question about how the Tories would be a new dawn, how about an all embracing guideline in five simple words, focusing on what Blair is clearly obsessed with at present and throwing it firmly back in his face: -

"We will disclaim the legacy."

Admittedly this would call for all talk of being the "heir to Blair" to cease immediately, but if a new dawn is really what we are looking for.....

[John Coles]

It surprises me that Rupert Murdoch should continue to employ Portillo: he is living off the wasting political asset of his knowledge of current politics and is rapidly becoming just another bitchy political commentator - we have quite enough of those.
His reasons for Brown's anticipated success reek of personal bitterness at his failed political career
Time for him to get a day job.

[Andrew Woodman]

I can't take anything Portillo says seriously, because everything he writes is tagged with bitterness. No mention of Hague because of his issues with him, Davis dismissed as not part of the team. Mr Portillo may be better sticking to his Arts documentaries if he can't divorce vendettas from his writing.

[Tam Large]

All the poll analyses indicate a hung parliament: and with the choice being between creepy Gordon and PR Dave I think Parliament would be better hung - preferably by the neck until dead... I have no doubt the stay-at-home-why-should-we bother-to-vote party will top the poll - and no wonder.

Actually it could be better for conservatism if Gordon were to win. The imploding economy will then be firmly at his door, ensuring a long Conservative term after that, and Cameroonism would be chucked out enabling genuine conservatism to recover at last.

I'm not sure about the term "Cameroonism". Can one have a political philosophy based on no actual beliefs?

[simon]

I have little, or no, time for Portillo. The remarkable turnaround from 'ardent Right-Winger' to 'Mincing-Fop' is cringeworthy. I think this turnaround stems from the reaction to his loss of Enfield Southgate in 1997- for many the 'highlight' of that evening. But, he is right about the Tory 'front-bench' team. Apart from Davis, Fox and Hague, the others are seriously lightweight. He's spot-on about Willets and Letwin and i too find it difficult to take Tarquin seriously as Shadow Chancellor. At the moment Labour may be seen as 'least than honest' and 'ineffective' but there is no real atmosphere 'out there' with regard to 'get the bas*ards out'. I see direct parallels with the position of Cameron/Vinick and the Conservatives/Republicans. Strange how reality follows fiction!

[Paul, Southampton]

Can one have a political philosophy based on no actual beliefs?

Yes, it's called Blairism

[malcolm]

As I have posted many times before,I find Portillo a difficult man to understand in terms of his beliefs and motivations. This article could be right but equally he may be wrong too.I happen to believe that we actually have quite a strong team and some outstanding back benchers.It does seem to be a deliberate policy of the leadership to downplay the role of the individual Shadow cabinet members in return for building up a cult of personality for DC. I don't particularly like this although do understand that in the short term it's probably necessary to build up DC as a 'strong leader' and ensure that his personality dominates the party. I do hope that in 2007 we shall see the Shadow Cabinet playing a much more prominent role in putting forward policy.I have little doubt that we are stronger than our Labour counterparts in all the major posts.
The fact that we have no Mandelson or Campbell is A GOOD THING! Those two probably did more to destroy trust in politics than anyone other than Blair himself.Personally I believe that the major reason so many people do not vote now is down to the way Nulabour has debased politics during the last 12 years.Portillo might admire them for bringing the electoral successes they helped to bring Nulabour, I hate them for what they have done to my country.
Brown does seem to me to be a man who like most of his party has run out of ideas. Most of what he's come up with in recent months are trivial gimmicks that don't even command the medias attention for one day,perhaps he's saving them for his first '100 days'. Whether he has anything credible could well be the key to the next election.
If I had money to gamble and was forced to take a bet today, my money would still be on Cameron to win.

[Richard]

Ah yes, Portillo, the man opposed to the Tories' highly popular policy on immigration. He knows all about what the public want. Or not.

[The Laughing Cavalier]

Could it be that the esteemed commentator is angling for a peerage?

[Sean fear]

To be fair, I thought it was a better article than I was expecting from the headline.

I am increasingly coming to the view that Labour is heading for a really bad defeat next time, as nothing seems to be going right for them. Whether that defeat will be bad enough to produce a fair-sized Conservative majority is still open to question.

[Ted]

The point at issue isn't Portillo, it's that to win the next election the Conservative Party needs a massive change in popular support. For three elections we have got less than a third of the votes. We need to add one additional voter to every three who voted for us last time - a bigger swing than Labour achieved between 1992 and 1997.
That is a huge task - I personally don't think it's possible though I do think it almost certain Labour will lose its majority and highly likely we will have a plurality of seats.
Brown will run a negative campaign, he'll offer short term tax bribes (as with the £300 off council tax), he will probably try to hold election close too or on same day as EU elections to maximise UKIP effect (if they haven't imploded by then). Even so I expect we might just win enough seats to put us in first place.
Then it's up to the LDs, and whether they would support Labour (I think a minority Tory Govt would almost certainly win the next election held 6 months or so afterwards so why would we bring the LDs into a coalition?). A party which narrowly avoided voting for unilateral disarmament yesterday, that is against private equity companies, parental choice,wants to soak the rich. What really divides them from Labour?

[Sean Fear]

It depends how our opponents' votes split, Ted.

In 1922, 38% produced a clear Conservative majority as the Labour and Liberal votes divided almost evenly.

The next election will see something like 10% voting for the minor parties. A result of, say, Con. 38%, Lab. 30%, LD 22%, Others 10% might well see the Conservatives returned with a majority.

[Ted]

Sean
Agreed but that assumes an LD revival of sorts. I'm not sure that circumstances will be as good for them in 2009 as they were in 2005. They continue to be fixated by Iraq and we will most probably be out of Iraq by end 2008, tuition fees will not be the impetus in University towns that they were. That might make it easier for us to get 40% plus but I don't underestimate Brown.

[Jack Stone]

The Conservative Party as been hitting forty per cent in some polls and as experiance a more sustained poll lead than it as had for about fifteen years and what do we get from the moaners and defeatists on this site complete and total negativity.
The party as everything to be positive about and nothing to be negative about. Those who post these negatative comments are I think on the large part people who pray for defeat not victory because they only want to victory on there own terms.

[Jack Stone]

The Conservative Party as been hitting forty per cent in some polls and as experiance a more sustained poll lead than it as had for about fifteen years and what do we get from the moaners and defeatists on this site complete and total negativity.
The party as everything to be positive about and nothing to be negative about. Those who post these negatative comments are I think on the large part people who pray for defeat not victory because they only want to victory on there own terms.

[Ted]

Jack
There are some who think defeat for Cameron's Conservatives will ensure a return to the True Path possibly through the break up of the party. However it is also good to be realistic.

I voted for DC as the best hope for us but not necessarily to bring us to outright victory at the next election. I've been pleasantly surprised at his skill in bringing us into a position of hope, but he will not have failed if we don't get a majority at the next election ,provided we have a clear majority on votes cast and gains taking us into the high 200's (260+).

Labour goes into the next election on basis of 36% support - about what it lost with in 1979. Doubt it can increase that but it could hold much of that support. I hope it crashes and burns but my head says that's unlikely.

[sbjme19]

People who criticise the weakness of the Tory team should watch one of the departmental question times on the parliamentary channel - particulary the big departments of state like Health and the Home Office - and see whether they think these ministers are worth their salaries and whether they're answering questions properly.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

http://hunterandshooter.blogspot.com/

Contributions are most welcome!

[Off Message]

I voted for Cameron because I thought he was the only one who gave us a chance of an outright win next time. I put that at just a 10% chance but worth a punt. Things appear on track but until he's facing Brown at the despatch box and we find out what sort of PM Brown will be then we can't be sure of much. What are the odds against outright Tory victory next time?

[Alex Forsyth]

Labour goes into the next election on basis of 36% support

Rather a premature calculation, I would say.

However Ted is right to say that Cameron's dictatorial party repels traditional Conservatives to the extent that many have no intention of working for it in the forseeable future.

The party may be leading in the polls but its membership continues to decay. A hung parliament leading to a LibDem-Lab alliance and the introduction of a PR system weighted against the Tories will probably seal its doom.

Most of the really bright Tories I worked with during the Thatcher years have one by one turned their backs on the party, and contrary to the pitiful fantasies of Jack Stone and other Camerloon anoraks, they have not turned to UKIP or to any other fringe party. They find more fulfillment in business and in family life.

Politics in general - not only the Tory Party - is now desperately out of touch with the real world.

[Ted]

36% was what they got last time sio thats the basis of their support - not premature but fact.
Though I support a broad church conservative party I think any "repelled" by Cameron are welcome departures. Their support would IMHO lose us 100 votes for any one attracted.

[Scotty]

"I am increasingly coming to the view that Labour is heading for a really bad defeat next time, as nothing seems to be going right for them. Whether that defeat will be bad enough to produce a fair-sized Conservative majority is still open to question."
I agree with Sean Fear's analysis on the next GE. I think that if you look at the mountain the Conservatives have to climb and nothing else, you might think a scenario where we become the largest party or have a working majority is impossible to achieve in one GE.
But it all depends on voter turnout, performance of the Libdems and others. Will voter apathy among Labour supporters and tactical voting/unwind be able to achieve the kind of swing that Labour received in 97'?
Will the conservatives find themselves winning seats which they had not even realistically targeted?
I don't think that Portillo mentioned the most important factor at the next GE, Brown vs Cameron might focus many politically aware voters like ourselves but will enough people who have not voted recently be energised by a positive conservative campaign or angry enough at Labour to vote for change?

[comstock]

recession may give Brown the opportunity to persuade the electorate that this is not a time to take risks with an untried economic team: hold on to nurse for fear of something worse.

Of course I don't *want* a recession (though we need something to bring house prices down) but this type of thing worked for Major in 92.

FWIW, and with my non-partisan hat on, I think you've brought Davey boy out an election too early.

[Fred Baker]

With friends like Portillo - who needs enemies?

The only MP to lose his seat over the dodgy sale of the Conservative Club!

[Yet Another Anon]

A hung parliament leading to a LibDem-Lab alliance and the introduction of a PR system weighted against the Tories will probably seal its doom.
Labour backbenchers will do their utmost to block a system that will ensure Labour never wins an overall majority again - it would never get through.

I think that the Labour Party and Conservative Party will both end up with gains in votes - Labour will mainly gain back voters who switched from them to the Liberal Democrats since 1997 losing them in some cases what had been safe Labour seats to the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives will pick up Labour and Liberal Democrat votes in Conservative-Labour marginals in the south - Labour could easily run out with 40% of the vote and a 100 seat majority with maybe the Conservatives getting more like 225 seats and 35% of the vote and depending on turnout maybe going over the total number of votes they got in 1997 - it will be hailed as a great Labour victory but will see the Conservative Party having seen off the Liberal Democrat challenge and with a more coherent policy agenda with more substance under a new leader in 2023 or 2024 (I expect David Cameron will be Conservative leader for 10 years and that then there will still be some way to go although that Gordon Brown's successor will not have the aura and a rather clearer leader who pulls the UK out of the by then well hated EU and goes for more traditional policies regarding crime and punishment and small government).

[Goldie]

Hm. I know Michael Portillo, Michael Portillo is a friend of mine, but his political prognostications are usually wrong, so I find it worrying that I agree with him completely that Cameron is simply not doing what he should have been doing if he wants to win. Brown will probably be PM for the next years.

Michael is wrong about the health of the US Economy, which remains robust.

one more heave, eh?

[Andy Stidwill]

What Portillo is saying could be based on the fact that Labour and the Lib Dems together have a majority of 172 seats (based on the new boundaries). That's a pretty high majority for Cameron to knock out, so I can understand why Portillo thinks that Brown in coalition with the Lib Dems is a pretty likely possibility.

[Tam Large]

I voted for Cameron because he lied about his intentions...

[Matt Wright]

Sometimes Portillo alights on a useful and accurate analysis but on this one I think he is way off mark. I think that DC is moving our party into the mainstream and making the Lib Dems less relevant. MIng is now linking Lib Dems with Labour and effectively propping a failed Labour Party up. Add to this that Brown has added to many of the countries current problems - pensions crisis, welfare state dependency, taxes, bureaucracy etc. My prediction is that Lib Dems may well suffer major election blows,

Matt