Labour's poll lead is on the up again

As Miliband's energy price freeze continues to dominate debate, the party's lead has risen significantly, with a nine-point advantage today.

Confronted by the popularity of Ed Miliband's proposed energy price freeze, the Tories have comforted themselves with polls showing little or no change in Labour's lead. As Daniel Finkelstein wrote last week in the Times, "A graph of Labour’s lead over the Conservatives shows that it has been steadily, if slowly, declining since the beginning of the year and continues to decline. Mr Miliband’s intervention hasn’t altered this." The Tories' hope is that while the public overwhelmingly support the price freeze (with 80% of all respondents and 69% of Conservative voters backing it in today's ComRes poll), few will actually change their vote as a result. 

But five weeks on from Miliband's speech, a period in which the policy has dominated debate, there is increasing evidence that Labour's position has improved. After polls earlier this month showing the party as few as four points ahead, the five most recent YouGov surveys have put its lead at between six and nine points (today's has Labour on 40% and the Tories on 31%), with its vote share also rising by several points. 

As ever, one can never say for certain what lies behind voting intentions, but Labour's success in shifting the debate away from the deficit and GDP (where it trails the Tories) and towards living standards (where it leads) is likely to be a factor. The Conservatives have been wary of trumpeting the rise in growth too loudly for fear of appearing indifferent to falling wages (the promised "blitzkrieg" against Labour's economic record failed to materialise), while also remaining conscious of the need to avoid, in Nick Clegg's words, playing on Miliband's "side of the course". 

Some Tories will be consoled by the finding that while 80% support Miliband's proposed price freeze, only 41% believe he will "deliver on his promise". But as one Labour strategist pointed out to me, this is greater than the party's vote share (which stands at 38% in ComRes) and in an age of great scepticism about politicians' ability to deliver their policies, 41% is not to be sniffed at. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the Labour conference in Brighton last month. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.