A lukewarm electorate

The latest polls show voter disillusionment, and support for the Tories coming mainly from the rich

It's easy to spin numbers: pick and choose the figures and, bang, you have a news story from the latest poll.

But the overwhelming picture from the polls we have seen over the past few days (and weeks) is that the general public is not particularly enthused about either party. An Ipsos/MORI poll for the Observer at the weekend put the Conservatives on 43 per cent and Labour on 26 per cent ("Tory surge defeats Labour comeback!!!" -- exclamation marks my own), while a ComRes poll for the Independent today shows the Tories with 38 per cent and Labour with 29 ("Tories are a party for the rich, say voters").

Although the UK Polling Report suggests that the 17-point spike (also shown in a ComRes poll a few weeks ago) was an anomaly, all we can tell with any certainty is that it's a close call. Voters are hard to predict in these politically disillusioned times.

Toby Helm and Marina Watson Peláez in the Observer said:

Many MPs believe the volatility in the polls is evidence that voters are no longer loyal to any one party. When the economic news appears good, voters are less inclined to think ill of the government of the day, but when things look rough they take against it.

This is supported by today's ComRes poll in the Independent, which shows yet more rumbling evidence that we could be on course for a hung parliament, which my colleague Mehdi blogged about early this month. If the figures in the poll were repeated at a general election, the Tories would be five seats short of an overall majority.

The poll contains some interesting details. As its headline suggests, a majority of people agreed with the statement that "a Conservative government would mainly represent the interests of the well-off rather than ordinary people" by a margin of 52 to 44.

A majority of 49 per cent disagreed that "the Conservative Party offers an appealing alternative to the Labour Party", while 45 per cent agreed.

These are very fine margins. It shows, certainly, that the Tories have not succeeded in their mission to rebrand themselves as the progressive party of the centre, but it also displays a lack of true conviction either way on the part of voters.

More tellingly, perhaps, the poll showed that the only social group among which the Tories enjoy a clear lead is the top AB group, where they are sailing ahead by 20 points. In all other groups, the two parties are neck-and-neck. So, the only group of whose support the Tories can be sure is their core coterie anyway. It demonstrates once again -- if it needed demonstrating -- who stands to gain from a Conservative government.

Perhaps we don't need to worry that the politicians are starting a class war -- we're on to it ourselves.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump

For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic.

Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional ­crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017.

US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy.

British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it.

This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”.

A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of ­non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic.

You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the ­bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”.

It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media.

By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country.

Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013)

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder