Labour lead just five points in new poll

Latest ComRes poll shows slim lead for Labour as the Tories increase their lead on the economy to nine points.

The latest ComRes/Independent on Sunday poll is a disappointing one for Labour. It puts the party's lead at just five points, unchanged since last month's survey, which showed a bounce for the Tories following David Cameron's promise of an EU referendum. Labour is on 36 per cent (-1), with the Tories on 31 per cent (-1), UKIP on 14 per cent (+1) and the Lib Dems on eight per cent (-3).

David Cameron and George Osborne have also increased their lead on the economy from one point to nine points. Twenty seven per cent of people say they trust Cameron and Osborne "to make the right decisions about the economy" and fifty one per cent say they do not, compared to 20 per cent who say they trust Ed Miliband and Ed Balls and 55 per cent who say they do not.

Midway through the parliament and with economic growth non-existent, one would expect Labour to be performing better. Governments tend to gain support in the run-up to a general election (as Gordon Brown's did), so the party needs a much greater cushion than five points.

This is, of course, just one poll; an ICM/Guardian survey earlier this week put the party's lead at 12 points and the most recent YouGov poll put it at 11. But the ComRes survey is a good example of why most shadow ministers privately think another hung parliament is the most likely outcome of the next election.

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls trail David Cameron and George Osborne on the economy by nine points. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496