Conservative MP James Wharton, who is set to hold his seat. Photograph: BBC.
Show Hide image

Why is Labour losing to the Tories in ultra-marginal Stockton South?

Losses to Ukip mean the party has failed to gain any ground since 2010. 

Labour strategists have long drawn comfort from their party's polling performance in the marginal seats they need to win in 2015. But a new survey by Survation (commissioned by Unite) of north-east constituency Stockton South, where the sitting Conservative MP James Wharton has a majority of just 332, makes unhappy reading for them.

It puts the Tories in front on 39 per cent (unchanged on 2010) with Labour two points behind on 37 per cent (down one), Ukip on 18 per cent (up 15), the Lib Dems on 3 per cent (down 12) and the Greens on 3 per cent (up three). Support for Nigel Farage's party has surged and support for Nick Clegg's has collapsed but Ed Miliband's has failed to benefit. As the detailed data shows, gains from the latter (35 per cent of 2010 Lib Dems back Labour) have been offset by losses to the former (who 12 per cent of 2010 Labour voters have defected), the Tories and the Greens. Wharton, who has worked hard to build a personal following and who tabled the recent EU referendum bill, is also likely to have benefited from an incumbency effect. 

The poll is a demonstration of the nightmare scenario for Labour in 2015: Ukip soar, the Lib Dems sink, but the Tories manage to cling on as the single largest party. It is also a reminder, as I've argued before, that the real danger facing the party is not that it loses seats to the Farageists (although it may) but that Ukip splits the anti-government vote in Conservative marginals. 

This is, of course, just one survey (and the Tories' lead is within the margin of error) and just one seat. But six months out from the general election, Labour should worry that it has seemingly failed to gain ground in what is a must-win constituency. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”