MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: If the Tories hold their nerve, millions could still return to the fold

Beware of conventional wisdom. It is meant to stop you from thinking, and so from acting, independently. For a long time now, political commentators who want to fit in with the crowd have been more or less assuming a Labour General Election victory. This assumption reveals itself in quirks of language, especially on the BBC.

For instance, if Rishi Sunak says he can still win, an 'impartial' news bulletin will report that he 'insists' he can, a verb clearly expressing doubt that he is right. Yet none of those who ceaselessly presume the outcome of the poll can possibly know it.

As quickly as pollsters develop methods that correct their past mistakes, new variables come into play. And the pollsters' language suggests much more movement than there actually is.

Take the 'enormous' 26 per cent 'swing' from Tory to Labour at the Blackpool South by-election. This makes it sound as if thousands are switching energetically from one party to the other. But few reports noted that the winning Labour vote was lower than it had been at the last General Election, when Labour failed to win the seat. Who mentioned that the turnout was down from 32,752 to 18,375? Can it be wise to draw firm conclusions without doing so?

For instance, if Rishi Sunak (pictured) says he can still win, an 'impartial' news bulletin will report that he 'insists' he can, a verb clearly expressing doubt that he is right

But few reports noted that the winning Labour vote was lower than it had been at the last General Election, when Labour failed to win the seat. Pictured: Keir Starmer

Our greatest living expert on polls and voting, Professor Sir John Curtice, has noted that Labour local government support is in fact weakening. It appears to be worse than it was under Ed Miliband and hugely worse than it was in 1995 under Tony Blair.

Several results from different parts of the country confirm this. Labour is not sweeping all before it. Voters know that general elections change their fate substantially. They also know that by-elections and local elections change little. So they let off steam by lending their votes to parties they normally shun. Or they show their contempt by staying at home.

There is a good deal more exasperated contempt for the Tories than there is enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer. This is understandable. The Tories have – as we have often warned them – done themselves no favours by their repeated internal quarrels and their petulant dumping of the most popular leader they have had in decades. But the last few months have seen signs that there is now some sort of order and purpose on the bridge of HMS Tory.

The Rwanda policy is rapidly taking shape as a real deterrent to immigration, with strong independent evidence of its effectiveness coming from Ireland. The economy is quietly recovering, no mean feat.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to be tired of a government after a long period in office; indeed, it is more or less compulsory. But surely only the sort of people who pay to have pain inflicted on themselves would choose to have a worse government because they do not like the present administration?

Instead of acting as if a Starmer triumph is a foregone conclusion, those who describe and explain our national politics need to do some more work on what such a thing would mean. In 1997, Labour ruthlessly concealed devastating policies such as its raid on private pensions. What is the party concealing now?

There is still all to play for, and every reason, when the day comes, for discontented Tories to return in their millions to the Conservative fold.