The Tories win an EU poll bounce but Labour shouldn't panic

Labour's lead falls to just six points after Cameron's EU referendum pledge but returning UKIP supporters aren't enough to transform Tory fortunes.

Just like his EU "veto" in December 2011, David Cameron's promise of a referendum on UK membership has won the Tories a poll bounce. A ComRes survey for tomorrow's Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror shows that Cameron's referendum pledge has boosted support for the Conservatives by five points and more than halved Labour's lead to six (although support for the latter is unchanged at 39 per cent). The rise in Tory support from 28 per cent last month to 33 per cent has come almost entirely at the expense of UKIP, which is down four points to 10 per cent. At the same time, the number of people agreeing that Cameron "is turning out to be a good Prime Minister" has risen by five points to 32 per cent, while the number disagreeing has fallen by six to 46 per cent, giving him a net approval rating of -14, his best score since June 2011.

The sudden surge in Tory support, albeit from an unusually low base of 28 per cent, will cause some discomfort in Labour circles and lead more to conclude that Ed Miliband has miscalculated by refusing to match Cameron's offer of a referendum. If the Tories are only six points behind in mid-term, who's to say they won't win the next election?

There are, however, at least two reasons why Labour shouldn't panic. First, just like the Tory poll bounce following the PM's EU "veto", the surge in support may prove to be only temporary. After a week of favourable coverage from the media (almost all of the fieldwork took place before the negative GDP figure was released), it would be unusual if the Tories' standing hadn't improved. One of Miliband's strengths is that he isn't swayed by short-term fluctuations in the polls and I expect this occasion will prove no exception.

Second, it was always likely that a large number of UKIP supporters would return to the Conservative fold before the next general election. Cameron's promise of a referendum may merely have accelerated the process. The biggest problem for the Tories remains that they are in retreat in those areas - the north, Scotland, Wales - that denied them a majority at the last election.

Finally, it's worth remembering that just six per cent of voters regard the EU as one of the most "important issues" facing Britain. The outcome of the next election will be determined by growth, jobs and public services - the issues that matter to most people. The promise of an EU referendum might have won the Tories back some support from UKIP but, on its own, it won't be enough to transform the party's fortunes.

Update: Part of the shift in support for the parties is attributable to a change in methodology by ComRes. At UK Polling Report, Anthony Wells calculates that without this the numbers would have been: Labour 37 (-2), Conservatives 32 (+4), Liberal Democrats 11 (+2), UKIP 13 (-1), so there would have been a slightly smaller increase in support for the Tories and a significantly smaller fall in support for UKIP.

YouGov's poll for the Sunday Times also shows an increase in support for the Tories, who are up two points to 35 per cent, their best rating in a YouGov survey this year. Labour are down two points to 41 per cent, with the Lib Dems up two to 12 per cent and UKIP down two to seven per cent.

A Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday has the Conservatives up two to 31 per cent, Labour unchanged on 38 per cent, the Lib Dems down one to 10 per cent and UKIP down two to 14 per cent.

David Cameron delivers his speech on the EU at Bloomberg's headquarters in London earlier this week. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.