If women hadn’t had the vote, Labour would have won every general election since the Second World War. Each time the Tories have won, it has been because women have supported them more strongly than men. They lost that advantage in the mid-1990s and now, with David Cameron as leader, they are winning it back again.
Our Populus poll this week shows that while Labour and the Tories are level-pegging among men, Cameron’s Conservatives have a six-point lead among women. The gender gap widens still more when people are asked how they would vote at the next election if Labour were led by Gordon Brown. Men then favour Labour over the Conservatives by three points, while women give the Tories a 12-point lead.
One look at page 4 of The Times on Tuesday gave a powerful clue to Cameron’s attractiveness to women. I don’t mean that he is good-looking. He isn’t particularly. But women love to see a fully-involved dad. Our photograph showed the Tory leader pushing his disabled son in a buggy with one hand, while clasping the ankle of the small daughter who is sitting on his shoulders with the other. Behind him, his wife Samantha steers a pushchair with their baby inside.
His wife adds to his political appeal. She is a working mother with her own career. But she isn’t scarily glamorous. The two epitomise modern family life: sharing the breadwinning, sharing the domestic tasks, supporting each other. That one of their children is severely disabled prevents their world from being too impossibly perfect.
You might think it shallow that women voters should even care about these things. If you do, you are probably a man. Men tend to be more embarrassed about admitting that personality matters in politics. For women the personal is political, and vice versa. It seems obvious.
That is not to say that a potential prime minister’s personality is all that matters. Of course a party’s policy is important, too, as are the politicians who are likely to form a Cabinet. But when we vote for a party we want to believe that its leader understands our concerns, has the right priorities and is competent enough to lead the country.
These tests of character were applied as much to Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher as they are today. But the difference from today in both those eras was that Britain was then in crisis. We needed one prime minister to beat the Germans and the other to beat the trade unions. Toughness and determination were more important than an understanding of the difficulties of combining work and family life.
These days there is no great enemy to be fought. Yes, there are threats, such as Islamist terrorism, but these will not best be countered by a Thatcher or a Churchill. Economically, Britain is ticking over fairly well. So voters want a Government whose priorities they share, which can run the public realm competently, keeping them and their families safe, healthy, financially secure and well educated. Women in particular want their politicians to follow a cleaner, greener agenda, too.
So why is Brown not picking up support from women? He, too, has two small children, as well as having suffered dreadfully when his first baby died. He has spent millions on improving childcare and peppers his speeches with calls to give all children — here and in developing countries — opportunities. He now talks green, too.
Unlike Cameron, he has kept his children out of the public eye. We should not blame him for that. But it is probably seen as a symptom of the shyness and lack of ease with himself that tends to put women off him. They prefer a man who is comfortable in his skin.
Another problem is Brown’s reluctance to listen. A friend’s son came home from university recently declaring that he had discovered how to appeal to girls. “You just have to listen to them, Dad,” he explained. It’s quite true. Nothing is more attractive than a man who is prepared to listen attentively to a woman. Nothing is more annoying than a man who lectures a woman, patronises her or wants to talk only about himself.
Yet Brown seems to be much more comfortable in transmit, rather than receive, mode. In interviews he answers not the question he has been asked but the question that he wishes he had been asked. His tendency to steamroller his way through conversations, rather than engaging with his interlocutor, does him no good.
The group whom the Chancellor alienates the most, according to our Populus poll, is working-class (known as C2) women. These are the very voters Labour needs to hold on to if it is to win an election. If Brown cannot appeal to them, Labour will be in trouble.
Of course, you could see politics as a zero-sum game: for every woman Cameron wins over, he loses a man. It is not necessarily so. Blair managed to woo both women and men to his cause. But even if it were, the sums would still be against Brown. There are two million more women than men in the electorate and, because they are older, they are more likely to vote. Labour discards them at its peril.
Blair to stay? I think not
Every time I read a story claiming that Tony Blair won’t leave office until May or June or July, I become even more convinced that he is planning an early exit. Why? Because the only weapon left to him is surprise.
If he wants to go with dignity, it has to be on his own terms. So the best ploy for him is to wait until there is a break in the clouds — an agreement in Northern Ireland, perhaps? — then startle us all. It could be either side of Christmas, but I bet it won’t be as late as next spring.
When I try out this idea on people close to Blair, they deny it strongly. He has so much to do, they say; he isn’t acting like a man about to go. Well, that’s not inconsistent with the plan, is it? Either they are not in on the surprise or, if they are, they don’t want it shared by journalists.
Whether I’m right or not, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
On the grapevine
I am no closer to discovering the secret of a decent night’s sleep after a glass or two of red wine. Some of you swear by good French red and avoid New World grapes; others say the reverse. I know about drinking loads of water, but a couple of you claim that tonic water works better still. And there is a theory that sulphites cause the problem. But how are we to tell which wines contain them?
All I have really learnt is that this is a widespread complaint. I plan to ask the oracle — Dr Thomas Stuttaford — what can be done, and report back.
