Labour's shrinking poll lead increases party jitters

Having previously enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories, the party's lead has been reduced to single figures, far below the level needed to be confident of victory.

It was the Tories, rather than their Labour counterparts, who left for the summer recess with their tails up, largely for the reasons set out by David Cameron in that final, triumphant PMQs. "The deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is down, welfare is capped, and Abu Qatada is back in Jordan." Alongside this, as Thursday's GDP figures will confirm, the economy is finally beginning to recover and the party is united in support for James Wharton's EU referendum bill. 

Recess is always a time when Labour jitters increase as MPs return to their constituencies to find few of the party's messages are resonating on the doorstep and Labour's shrinking poll lead won't help matters. For more than a year after George Osborne's "omnishambles" Budget, the party enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories but today's YouGov poll puts its lead at just three points, the lowest level since March 2012. 

We'll have to wait and see whether it's an outlier but the trend is clearly downward. In the four previous YouGov polls, Labour has led by an average of just six points, a level far below that required to justify hopes of winning a majority in 2015. History shows that support for oppositions invariably slumps in the months before the general election as voters come to view it as a choice between competing alternatives, rather than a referendum on the government. It's for this reason that Labour officials privately speak of the party needing a lead of around 15 points to be confident of victory. 

As I've argued before, it's still more likely that Labour will be the largest party after the next election than the Conservatives. The electoral system continues to favour it (the party needs a lead of just 1% on a uniform swing to win a majority, while the Tories require one of seven); UKIP, which draws around 60% of its support from 2010 Tories, will continue to split the right-wing vote; most Lib Dem defectors are likely to remain loyal to Labour (they'll never forgive Clegg for his betrayals over spending cuts, tuition fees and the like); Labour's brand is strong even if Miliband's isn't (46% of voters say that they would "consider" voting for the party compared to 40% for the Tories) and the Lib Dem incumbency bonus will hurt the Tories (who are in second place in 37 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats) the most.

But it's now far from unthinkable that the Tories could remain the single largest party (which would require a lead of around three-four points) and reunite the coalition for a second term in government. All of which means that, once again, the pressure will be on Miliband to deliver "the speech of his life" come conference time. 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here