A grim poll for the Tories

Labour lead up to eight points as Tory support falls to just 33 per cent in new Populus poll.

David Cameron is said by some to have emerged almost unscathed from the Liam Fox imbroglio and last week's terrible unemployment figures. But the latest monthly Populus/Times poll (£), the first to be conducted since Fox's resignation, makes grim reading for the Prime Minister. Labour's advantage over the Conservatives is up from four points to eight points, the party's largest lead in a Populus poll since the election-that-never-was in 2007. By contrast, the Tories' share of the vote is down to just 33 per cent, their worst Populus figure in this parliament. Regardless of whether you take into account the likely effect of the boundary changes, George Osborne wouldn't get the majority he craves on these figures. And there's little to cheer the Lib Dems, who are down four points to just 8 per cent, their lowest figure since Populus started polling for the Times in 2003.

A

Latest poll (Populus/Times) Labour majority of 94 (uniform swing).

There is also some evidence that Fox's resignation has damaged the Tories' reputation. The number saying that they are "honest and principled" has dropped from 36 per cent in September to 30 per cent this month, while the proportion saying that they are "competent and capable" has fallen from 48 per cent last month to 42 per cent now.

However, it isn't all bad news for the Tories. Cameron and George Osborne are still rated as a better economic team than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls (a remarkable political achievement given that the economy hasn't grown for nine months), although their lead has fallen from 18 per cent in June to 13 per cent in September. The full data tables aren't available yet but the Times reports: "This drop is particularly pronounced among women, where the lead fell from 20 per cent to 11 per cent over the same period, and from 28 per cent to 9 per cent among skilled manual workers (C2s)."

New Statesman Poll of Polls

A

Labour majority of 50 (uniform swing).

Yet so long as the Conservatives retain their lead on the economy and Cameron is rated as a better leader than Miliband, the Tories will be confident of clawing back Labour's lead. As I always point out, personal approval ratings are often a better long-term indicator of the next election result than voting intentions. Labour frequently led the Tories under Neil Kinnock, for instance, but Kinnock was never rated above John Major as a potential prime minister. As the economy enters a new and dangerous phase, it will be worth watching to see whether these ratings begin to swing in Miliband's favour.

P.S. Conversely, the latest YouGov poll puts Labour's lead at just three points. Miliband's party is on 40 per cent, the Tories are on 37 per cent, and the Lib Dems are on 9 per cent.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496