The Tories' EU poll bounce is over already - but it's no surprise

Tory MPs need to remember that just six per cent of voters name the EU as one of the most "important issues" facing Britain.

It looks the Tory poll bounce that followed David Cameron's EU referendum pledge was of the "dead cat" variety. The weekend polls showed Labour's lead had fallen to just six as the Conservatives' vote share rose to 35 per cent but by the middle of the week it was back at nine. Today's YouGov poll has the Labour lead at 12, back at the level seen before Cameron's speech. 

This will come as a surprise to some, but it shouldn't. As I noted on the day of Cameron's speech, while voters share the Tories' euroscepticism, they do not share their obsession with the subject. Polling by Ipsos MORI (see below) shows that just six per cent of voters regard the EU as one of the most "important issues" facing Britain. As Lord Ashcroft writes in a typically astute analysis on ConservativeHome, Cameron's pledge has "made Tories feel better about being Tories" but it has not "changed anybody's mind". 

How important is the EU to voters? Not very

This isn't to say that Cameron was wrong to make his pledge. It has undoubtedly won some votes back from Ukip and shored up eurosceptic Conservative support. Rather, it is to say that Tory MPs need to remember that the outcome of the next election will be determined by growth, jobs and public services - the issues that matter to most voters. So long as growth remains non-existent and wages remain below inflation, the Tories will struggle to advance. 

With Labour back in front, Ed Miliband is in a stronger position to argue that his decision not to match Cameron's referendum pledge was the right one. While the Tories bang on about Europe, he wants to bang on about growth. Morever, as Raf noted in a prescient post, Miliband doesn't want the early years of a Labour government to be dominated by an EU referendum.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Miliband's referendum stance would prove disastrous for Labour - and, once again, he was right to reject conventional wisdom. 

David Cameron delivers his speech on the UK's relationship with the EU at Bloomberg's headquarters in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Momentum vice chair Jackie Walker calls claims of antisemitism in Labour “a weapon of political mass destruction”

The issue was also compared to a “monstrous soufflé” during a tense and often bizarre Momentum debate at Labour party conference.

A two-hour debate hosted by Momentum – asking whether there is antisemitism in the Labour party – grew heated on Sunday evening of the Labour party’s annual conference.

The packed out room, at the campaign movement’s fringe called The World Transformed, was warned beforehand to avoid “bitter incivility of discourse”. Which, translated from the language of Labour conference, means: “Don’t say anything dreadful.”

Jackie Walker, the vice-chair of Momentum, argued that antisemitism claims have been “exaggerated for political purposes”, and “the most fundamental aim of such allegations, I suggest, is to undermine Jeremy Corbyn”, and “silence” his supporters.

She claimed that there is “little if any hard evidence” that Labour has a problem with antisemitism, and blamed a “rabidly, anxiously anti-Corbyn” media for using antisemitism claims as a “weapon of political mass destruction”.

“Being offended is not the same as experiencing racism,” Walker added. “Claims of racism have been weaponised . . . Both the chair and the vice-chair [referring to herself] of Momentum are Jewish, and many leading members of Momentum are Jewish.”

(Later an audience member picked up on this theme perhaps a little too zealously. “Trotsky the Jew? Lenin the Jew? What about Zinoviev? What about Kamenev?” he cried, concluding that therefore claims of left-wing antisemitism are “nonsense”.)

Jeremy Newmark, head of the Jewish Labour Movement, clashed with Walker, accusing her of having “perpetuated” the “antisemitic myth” of slave trade collusion (referring to a comment she made on Facebook for which she was briefly suspended from Labour).

She hit back by saying she was “disappointed” in his comment, and had “simply repeated the defamation of his friends in the Jewish Chronicle”, accusing them of racism towards her as a black woman.

Newmark lamented that, “the relationship between our community and the Labour Party has deteriorated”, and “it pains me that a once historic natural alliance [should] dissipate, dilute and disappear”.

He warned those who “want to criticise someone for over-egging” the issue of antisemitism in the party should look no further than Jeremy Corbyn, who called for Shami Chakrabarti’s inquiry into the subject. “Perhaps you should criticise him.”

It was a tense exchange, which elicited gasps and heckles from the audience. But perhaps less predictable was the description of the Labour antisemitism row as a “monstrous soufflé” by Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, an LSE academic involved in boycotting Israeli universities.

He called it “a monstrous soufflé of moral panic being whipped up”, and warned the audience: “We need to ask about this soufflé”.

“Who are the cooks? Where’s the kitchen? What are the implements?” he asked, before the killer rhetorical question: “Why has this soufflé been cooked?”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.