Support for Labour surges after Miliband's speech

The party's lead over the Tories rises from nine points to 14 in the first poll since the Labour leader's speech.

The party conferences are among the few political events that can have a visible effect on the polls (the Budget, which led to a sustained fall in support for the Tories, is another) and Labour has duly won a bounce from Ed Miliband's well-received speech. The latest YouGov poll gives the party a 14-point lead over the Conservatives, up from nine points before the speech and the joint-largest lead it has enjoyed since the general election. Labour's share of the vote has increased by three points to 45%, while the Tories' has fallen by three to 31%. If repeated at an election on a uniform swing, these figures would see Miliband enter Downing Street with a majority of 130 seats.

The Tories will derive some consolation from the fact that Cameron continues to lead Miliband as the "best Prime Minister", but his advantage has shrunk to four points (31-27), the lowest since Miliband became leader.

Further evidence that Miliband's speech has improved his standing is supplied by a Survation poll for the Daily Mirror. The number of people who view him as "statesmanlike" has risen from 18% to 34%, whilst his net approval rating has improved from -46 to -15. In addition, 30% said they were more likely to vote for Labour following his speech (a figure that is more impressive than it appears. Some Labour voters will have needed no further persuasion.)

It remains to be seen whether this is a temporary or a permanent shift, but the Tories can no longer dismiss Miliband as unelectable (if they ever could). Nick Clegg's veto of the boundary changes means that Labour needs a lead of just one point on a uniform swing to win a majority. Based on the Tories' current performance, it's increasingly hard to see how they could prevent such a result.

Thirty per cent of people said they were more likely to vote Labour following Ed Miliband's speech. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.