Voters are warming to the idea of a Labour government

Lord Ashcroft poll shows that 56 per cent of voters would like to see a Labour-led government after the next election.

Lord Ashcroft's giant poll of 8,000 voters for ConservativeHome contains much that is worrying for Labour and Ed Miliband. More than half of those surveyed (52 per cent) say "Labour have not yet learned the right lessons from what went wrong during their time in government, and cannot yet be trusted to run the country again". In addition, even after a double-dip recession, David Cameron and George Osborne are still more trusted to manage the economy than Miliband and Ed Balls (by 53 per cent to 47 per cent), and Cameron has a 12-point lead over Miliband as the best prime minister (56 per cent to 44 per cent).

But this is a parliamentary system, you say, why should we care? The answer is that personal ratings are frequently a better long-term indicator of the election result than voting intentions. Labour often led the Tories under Neil Kinnock, for instance (sometimes by as much as 24 points), but Kinnock was never rated above John Major as a potential prime minister. A more recent example is the 2011 Scottish parliament election, which saw Alex Salmond ranked above Iain Gray even as Labour led in the polls. The final result, of course, was an SNP majority.

However, it's still worth highlighting one finding which should give Labour heart. Asked which party they would like to see in power in 2015 (see table below), rather than merely which they would vote for in an election tomorrow (a subtle but important distinction), 56 per cent say they would like to see a Labour-led government (36 per cent favour a Labour government and 20 per cent a Labour-Lib Dem coalition), while only 44 per cent say they would like to see a Conservative-led government, with 31 per cent favouring a Conservative government and 13 per cent a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.

Ninety three per cent of Labour joiners - those who did not vote for the party at the last election but say they would do so tomorrow - would like to see the party in power in some form after the next election. Even among Labour considerers, those who did not vote Labour in 2010 and would not do so in an election tomorrow, but say they would consider the party in the future, the figure is 72 per cent.

This is significant because it suggests that voters increasingly view Labour as an alternative government, rather than merely a receptacle for protest votes. For those Tories who console themselves with the thought that voters will drift back them before 2015 (and that new ones will join them), it is a worrying development.

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference on 19 November 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

I was wrong about Help to Buy - but I'm still glad it's gone

As a mortgage journalist in 2013, I was deeply sceptical of the guarantee scheme. 

If you just read the headlines about Help to Buy, you could be under the impression that Theresa May has just axed an important scheme for first-time buyers. If you're on the left, you might conclude that she is on a mission to make life worse for ordinary working people. If you just enjoy blue-on-blue action, it's a swipe at the Chancellor she sacked, George Osborne.

Except it's none of those things. Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a policy that actually worked pretty well - despite the concerns of financial journalists including me - and has served its purpose.

When Osborne first announced Help to Buy in 2013, it was controversial. Mortgage journalists, such as I was at the time, were still mopping up news from the financial crisis. We were still writing up reports about the toxic loan books that had brought the banks crashing down. The idea of the Government promising to bail out mortgage borrowers seemed the height of recklessness.

But the Government always intended Help to Buy mortgage guarantee to act as a stimulus, not a long-term solution. From the beginning, it had an end date - 31 December 2016. The idea was to encourage big banks to start lending again.

So far, the record of Help to Buy has been pretty good. A first-time buyer in 2013 with a 5 per cent deposit had 56 mortgage products to choose from - not much when you consider some of those products would have been ridiculously expensive or would come with many strings attached. By 2016, according to Moneyfacts, first-time buyers had 271 products to choose from, nearly a five-fold increase

Over the same period, financial regulators have introduced much tougher mortgage affordability rules. First-time buyers can be expected to be interrogated about their income, their little luxuries and how they would cope if interest rates rose (contrary to our expectations in 2013, the Bank of England base rate has actually fallen). 

A criticism that still rings true, however, is that the mortgage guarantee scheme only helps boost demand for properties, while doing nothing about the lack of housing supply. Unlike its sister scheme, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there is no incentive for property companies to build more homes. According to FullFact, there were just 112,000 homes being built in England and Wales in 2010. By 2015, that had increased, but only to a mere 149,000.

This lack of supply helps to prop up house prices - one of the factors making it so difficult to get on the housing ladder in the first place. In July, the average house price in England was £233,000. This means a first-time buyer with a 5 per cent deposit of £11,650 would still need to be earning nearly £50,000 to meet most mortgage affordability criteria. In other words, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee is targeted squarely at the middle class.

The Government plans to maintain the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which is restricted to new builds, and the Help to Buy ISA, which rewards savers at a time of low interest rates. As for Help to Buy mortgage guarantee, the scheme may be dead, but so long as high street banks are offering 95 per cent mortgages, its effects are still with us.