Grinding to a halt

Electoral Calculus’ latest prediction gives Labour a majority of 286 at the next general election. This is improbable on two counts—things always narrow in the run-up to the election, and I have to say Starmer’s negative approval ratings won’t help nearer the day. Enough of that. But what could happen if Labour won with a 160-odd majority—as Blair did in 1997? A sign of true determination to shake things up would be to tell MPs that their next two years would be about working overtime to get an ambitious legislative programme through. No more excuses about there not being enough parliamentary time. No more long breaks, endless recesses, early knocking-offs. If you are given such a large majority it might tell you that the people want real change, not a game of political tiddlywinks. The only problem with this approach is if you haven’t got a substantial manifesto— if you were so worried that you weren’t sufficiently perceived as Tory light you forgot to imagine anything could be radically different. Today we hear from our great leader that under Labour there won’t be a magic money tree and the economic conditions will necessitate continued austerity. Not his exact words but near enough. What will happen I wonder  to Labour’s improbable lead if the electorate cottons on to the looming reality that not a lot is likely to change?