Labour wins a conference poll bounce as its lead rises from five points to nine

Around half of the survey took place before Miliband's speech but Labour is already seeing the benefits from its time in Brighton.

Party conferences are among the few political events that can have a direct effect on the polls (most voters usually aren't paying attention) and it looks like Labour has alread benefited from its time in Brighton. 

The latest YouGov poll shows that the party's lead has risen from five points to nine, with Labour up two to 41%, the Tories down two to 32%, UKIP unchanged on 11% and the Lib Dems down two to 8%. Significantly, nearly half of the fieldwork took place before Ed Miliband's speech and its accompanying pledge to freeze energy prices until 2017, suggesting that the party could enjoy a further bounce in today's survey.

Another poll by YouGov found that voters view energy prices as the greatest threat to the economy, ranking them ahead of unemployment, benefit levels, inflation, interest rates and income taxes. A report due to be published by the pollster next week, entitled Utilities - Tariffs and Loyalty, found that 83% of UK customers believe that "energy suppliers maximise profits at the expense of customers", with only 2% disagreeing. In addition, 56% agree that "energy companies treat people with contempt", with only 7% disagreeing. 

There's also some good news for Miliband. The number viewing him as the best potential prime minister has risen from 21% at the start of September to 26%, although Cameron retains a commanding lead of nine points. 

It's common for poll ratings to fluctuate more than the usual during the conference season and the real test will be whether Labour can maintain its lead into next week. If the Conservative conference ends with Miliband's party ahead, some Tories will begin to worry that the Labour leader's "populism" is proving, well, popular. 

Ed Miliband speaks during a question and answer session yesterday at the Labour conference in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.