The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

New poll puts Labour just 2 points behind Tories

Latest Ipsos MORI poll puts Labour on 38 per cent, with Tories just ahead on 40 per cent.

If more evidence were needed that Lib Dem voters are rapidly defecting to Labour, the latest Ipsos MORI political monitor should provide it. The poll puts Labour on 38 per cent, up 7 points since June, with the Lib Dems falling 5 to 14 per cent. The Tories are up 1 to 40 per cent.

If repeated at an election on a uniform swing, the figures would put Labour on 310 seats, the Tories on 294 and the Lib Dems on 20.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

Poll

Hung parliament: Conservatives nine seats short.

That Labour has achieved this level of support without a permanent leader and before George Osborne has introduced those 25 per cent cuts is impressive. CCHQ may claim that the Labour leadership hustings have provided "a goldmine of attack strategies", but it must fear that a populist, anti-cuts line could begin to resonate with voters.

I should add, of course, that several other polls out today show a less dramatic change in the coalition's fortunes. The latest Guardian/ICM poll, for instance, puts the Tories on 38 per cent, Labour on 34 per cent and the Lib Dems on 19 per cent. But you can bet it's the MORI poll they'll be talking about in Westminster tonight.

36 comments

Nick's picture

I'd wait until we see just how much damage is done before casting my view on how people will vote at the next GE. When people end up hacked off through being out of work with no 'real' job prospects, once abysmal health services have become the norm again, once we've well and truly seen a crippled retail industry by virtue of increased VAT, once people have sensed how there is no welfare for those genuinely in need, once the black economy has taken hold and after higher crime rates affect our liberty.

Let's just wait for declining educational values in our dilapidated schools, a greater divide between rich and poor, escalating inflation, increased homelessness with no measures to address the lack of affordable housing.

Let's just wait and see how the 'Big Society' pans out, we've seen nothing yet....it's all to come. My guess is the real extent of the damage will be felt in 3 to 4 years, by which time Cameron and Clegg's Big Society idea will be nothing but a major embarrassment to them both.

Matt's picture

I hope Cameron and Clegg are serious about what they said about people dismissing their MPs if they dont work satisfactorily. Going by the MPs can be dismissed if they bungle up.

swatantra's picture

It can't work, because even if the whip is taken away from them they'll sit as Independents till the General Election, and theres sod all we can do about it unless they're on a criminal charge. They could sit for up to 5 years drawing their salary and beng called Hon Members.
No, the only way to get rid of them is to pass a Law which says if the whip is withdrawn, it forces a by election. That should also go for any MPs thinking of crossing the Floor, because they've discovered their principles.

Nick's picture

The so called right to vote out your MP is just another shallow 'without substance' promise by this coalition. This coalition has yet to deliver on any of its promises; ultimately it's broken pledges will lead to its downfall. Take the withdrawal of the ASBO; we've heard all about how they didn't do any good; we've yet to see what they are going to put in place of them.

Cameron and Clegg are a bit like like a couple of meddling schoolboys who take something to bits, then don't know how to put it all together again.

ernest boddy's picture

i find it very difficult to understand what this big society is all about, does glegg&cam mean they want us the poor hard up people to run the country for them, becaurse they hav'nt the know how, or does cameron need another scapegoat to blame as well as the lib/dems, for the mess we are going to end up in.

AndrewBoff's picture

Does this matter four and a half years before the next election? Don't think so.

Nick's picture

I cannot see how on this earth, this coalition will manage its full five year term, more that 90% of what they have proposed has yet to be enacted, assuming they get through that mere minor hurdle, they then have the anger of the electorate to contend with, it'll be a very angry lot too...once this lot has put the boot in.

Cameron and Clegg are just getting carried away with it for the now, they've yet to answer for the consequences in the future.

All they've done so far is said how they'll pull the plug, we've yet to see how they'll seal the leaks.

Dave C's picture

@AndrewBoff: "Does this matter four and a half years before the next election?"

Half a year before the AV referendum, elections in Northern Ireland, English local elections, and ballots for Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly.

Eighteen months before the GLA elections, which a certain Andrew Boff might have an interest in.

If you're a Lib-Dem looking at these figures, then there's certainly every reason to be worried.

Sam's picture

You can bet your bottom dollar that Labour will deflect all responsibility for the cuts that will be imposed over the next few years. They will tell us that everything that is to be done would not have been done under them, nor will they tell what pain they would have unleashed on us if they were in power.

None of the Labour candidates are willing to design policies that would make another Iraq more unlikely, or to protect civil liberties, or ensure that our secret services are not co-operating with torture.

To get elected, Labour are simply counting on what David Cameron counted on to get elected: a deeply unpopular incumbent government.

I see nothing in the Labour leadership contest that is deserving of Labour being given another chance to lead this country.

I hope Labour is forced to atone for their sins and make serious efforts to allay the fears I and many other people have about another Labour government, before they ever get into power again.

Matt's picture

At least the labour had ASBOs but these coalition guys will just leave it as it is by the looks of it. One of the reason they removed ASBOs they wanted to save money so that the community theymselves take responsibility. Thats not going to be easy because there are some people like the antisocials themselves who donot have any community spirit and it is difficult to stop them once they are on the rampage.

Matt's picture

unless we have a gun in our hands.

Sam's picture

Graeme - why are you so convinced that people will forget who resided of the credit crunch? Only 14% of the structural deficit is down to the credit crunch, so that shows that we need cuts, and most people understand that.

The Labour "comrades" and trade unionists may still be guarenteed to support Labour at the next election, but I wouldn't count on the rest of the country being so blind to the reality of Labour come the next election.

Nick's picture

I completely second that Graeme; and Sam your deluded. Where exactly do you get the 14% figure from, exactly where does that come from? I'd be very interested in seeing precisely which figures you refer to when quoting figures like that and the methodology behind how they are worked out?

Nick's picture

The issue is not just the cuts, it's the speed at which they are implemented. It is essential to ensure decent public services are maintained and mass unemployment are prevented; they are key essentials which the coalition appear to attach little regard to.

bernard2's picture

dont you got to love this poll , i said the sec clegg said during the election campaign he wanted to see lab wiped out , i figured there wasent much center left about clegg and hed lead to the destruction of the lib dems .polls like this wil destroy the coalition over time as lib mps get vary nervious indeed.

Sam's picture

Nick - well, I got it from an Anatole Kaletsky article, who got it from the IMF.

The pace of the cuts perhaps needn't be as fast as they are. We have a strong private sector so we could possibly get away with cutting slower. The coalition government appears to be doing a lot to encourage overseas investment so the private sector might be able to provide jobs for people being made redundant in the public sector.

I understand that people like you and Graeme hate the Tories and anything non-Labour, but it still confuses me how you're still so loyal to them.

swatantra's picture

I don't think Cameron has the guts to call the election just yet. I can imagine him holed up in his bunker for the full 5 year term.

Bill Kristol-Balls's picture

Might as well abandon the ol' leadership marathon then, seeing as Labour are doing so well without one.

Graeme's picture

Sam - this make little sense to me. Of course the public will be completely hacked off by a government that only cuts every public service possible, and delights in doing so. This government deserves to be kicked out. And also Sam - Labour will of course, as a result, be elected again, and probably quite soon.

Nash1's picture

Labour should have dumped Brown when they had the chance!

Dave C's picture

Sam,

The deficit is very much down to the credit crunch.

Public sector net debt was about 36% of GDP in early 2007 (lower than in 1997). Look at the graph in:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

and see how the line goes almost vertical when Northern Rock gets into trouble (followed later by RBS, Lloyds TSB, etc.) The cost of bank rescues alone was £850 billion. Then there was making sure that a recession didn't turn into a depression, when the banks stopped lending to each other.

Graeme's picture

The end of the LibDems is only good for Labour. As so many have argued, there is is a natural majority against the Tories. Which is the madness of people like Osborne being in power. But I cannot believe it could last for 5 years.

Dave C's picture

The supposed "goldmine of attack strategies" will be of little use to Con-Dems when they start alienating even Daily Mail readers by forcing redundancies in police, education, and other valued public services.

Christine Burns's picture

The problem as I see it is that it's hardly in the Lib Dems interest to do anything now to bring down the coalition, unless Cameron goes so far as to demand Nick Clegg's first born.

I would feel a lot better if i could see the scenario in which the Governmenr is forced to give in and call an election.

jeremiah's picture

This is the kind of thing that happens in Australia.

When people get tired of the Coalition they have no choice but to vote Labour.

The same will happen here it's just a matter of time.

Nick's picture

Should we really be surprised at the Liberals declining vote? I was never really sure what they stood for anyway; at least with Labour and Tories you had some idea. The Liberals always seemed to provide a moderating force between the extreme left and the extreme right. This coalition has turned it all on its head, the voters no longer have a protest vote by going for Liberal instead of Labour. They'll be many people adversely affected when these cuts bite hard, many of whom will be Liberals who will never ever trust their party again. Labour will win votes by default. To me; Clegg is the most disappointing in all of this, he's absolutely thrown away all the so called principles of his party for an unearned taste of power. There's much more to come, this coalition will founder because they are not listening to the voters and ultimately they have the last say.

chris's picture

I agree with Nick, LOL!

Watching Clegg before the election; for example, the VAT increase, or the press conference with the Yorkshire Post about cutting the deficit. It is easy to see he believes in absolutely nothing, he'll say anything to anyone completely contradicting what he said 5 minutes before.

puzzlebobble's picture

I'm still surprised none of the LDs has had the balls to stand up against the changes to the NHS etc. which will harm their constituents. I really thought at least one of them would have principles.

Sam's picture

The problem is that the Liberal Democrats are really two parties. The social democratic side to them have obviously flocked to Labour now.

In five years time things could be stabilised, policies such as decentralising NHS may have actually worked well, and the public may not have felt the cuts in public services as harshly as they thing they will do. Which, along with people coming to terms with Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories, and perhaps even thinking they done well in their small part of the coalition, the the polls in 5 years time (assuming that's when the next election is) could be pretty decent for the Lib Dems.

Although they are in an existential battle in my view. If over the course of the next few years the coalition is seen as brutal the Lib Dems will be massive losers, or if they can't show that they're actually doing anything and it's just seen as a Tory government.

I wouldn't rule out the people who consider themselves liberal who vote for the Lib Dems, voting for the Tories if increasingly become more centrist.

Nick's picture

Interesting figures Dave, there are so many variants! Sam, the facts really speaks for themselves, the deficit was under control until the global recession sparked a need to pump money into the banks and pay for essential anti-recessionary measures; most of which was accepted as being the right thing to do by the Tories. But setting aside the differences on how the deficit has arisen, you appear to concede that it's the pace of deficit reduction which is too fast. In which case, I find it hard to see how you can support this coalition. It just makes no sense to cut jobs and essential public services; neither will do anything to stimulate a still fragile economy.

It's not about a deep down loathing of the Tory party, it's down to a belief that economic revival must factor in decent public services and stable employment figures as two essential elements of obligatory expenditure. In my work I see the victims of all of this on a daily basis; I wish others could at times because they would see things differently I reckon.

I also have a deep mistrust of this coalition because of (a) the way they were never democratically voted in on the mandate they now follow (b) they have gone back on a lot of what they say. That's inherent in any government I know; but not so blatantly in the first few months of a government which acts as though it has public opinion right behind them. It's very different to how things were in 1997 when Labour swept to power on the merit of the overwhelming public vote; this coalition has no such standing.

Matt's picture

I think Labour is the right party to run Britain. The only thing is the labour party needs a party leader who can devise a policy to cut down the structural deficit in a manner that is progressive and not detrimental of people's means of livelihood and progress. They also need to come with their policies after carefully listening to people all around the country and they need to promote their vision of a fair and broadbased society where everyone gets a chance to progress. They do need to cut down on having all these bureaucratic bodies which are not necessary at all and just contribute in making governance more complicated and time consuming.

Matt's picture

About the Tories, one can say they are doing more or less what they announced in their manifesto but the lib dems are really really shocking. How can support things that they spoke against and were very much against? I never thought that Nick clegg would be so voiceless against Cameron? Anyway what is happening is good for labour because there were quite a lot of good things like building schools, starting various projects etc to help people they did when they were in government. This is really a good time for the labour party can sort out their leadership issue and then start looking on how to do those good things in a more efficient manner and eliminate thing that didnt quite work. They need to also work on simplifying various structures that they introduce.

Matt's picture

And not introduce things like mots for teachers to teach (Licenses for teachers to teach : an Ed balls idea) and id cards etc. These were wasteful practices that involved a lot of expenditure and would have cost the treasury so much.

Matt's picture

The Labour party is a very nice party and if the labour party gets a good leader who has a mass appeal and who can rally the support of all the labour party members and take them into confidence and really come up with policies that will really make a difference to people's lives short term and long term both this coalition days are numbered and Labour will come back again. Long live the labour party.

Nick's picture

Yes Matt, some valid points, Labour must use this time constructively, although they must also get down to voicing discontent sooner rather than later. The coalition is undoubtedly using the current period where labour is without a leader to rush things through. If these rushed through measures turn out to be disastrous (which seems a certainty) people will look to Labour and be critical in saying we raised no constructive opposition. We need the right leader, the right measures and an effective voice to get people to see what the alternatives are to these harmful measures; what's more we need it right now!

swatantra's picture

R5 Live produced the best Hustings so far. D Milliband and Andy Burnham clearly front runners. Ed Balls was quite right to apologise for Iraq, but its too late, and Dianne Abbott played to the audiance as usual and raised a big cheer declaring she's for scrapping Trident, populist, knowing full well its a b****r to do. Burnham seems to be emerging as the compromise candidate with the most sensible things to say and not offending any sections of the Party. A clean break with the old order, he says, is what we need.

Latest tweets