Support For Labour Shrinks As Faith In Recovery Grows, Icm Poll Finds

[rantnrave]

Support for Labour is sinking as faith in the UK's economic recovery builds, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

Ed Miliband's party drops two points on the month to stand at 35%, which is just three points ahead of David Cameron's Conservatives, who stand still on 32%. Labour's lead in the Guardian's respected 30-year polling series is thus squeezed to three percentage points, down from five last month and eight points in November.

The Liberal Democrats climb two, to reach 14%, and Ukip edges up one, to stand at 10%.

The scores of both the main government and opposition parties are now back to where they were last August, before Miliband's popular conference promise to freeze domestic fuel bills.

The economic news since has mostly been positive since, with falling inflation as well as unemployment, which could reduce the resonance of Labour's "cost of living crisis" pitch.

More at the Guardian here: UK recovery hits Labour support

Is the next election going to be closer than has been thought? Will UKIP still scupper the Tory's hopes??

(links in the article are from the original source)

Edited January 14, 2014 by rantnrave

[Errol]

What recovery would that be then?

[Bruce Banner]

Will UKIP still scupper the Tory's hopes??

They'll have my vote!

[Executive Sadman]

Cant see an outright tory win, but If the BBC keeps up its pro tory propaganda we could get a Labour-tory coalition

[slacker]

There is no way Labour can get back in with Balls in place - even if we take another dive.

All the 'never voting Tory again' will bottle voting UKIP on the day.

Tories will get a narrow majority and bring Lib Dems back in as a coalition partner on same terms as they have now on condition Cable has a more minor position.

All pledges to pensions will start being caveated, austerity 2.0 will be launched, IR will hit 9%, EU capital controls will be put in place, bail-ins will become the norm.

Milliband resigns, Yvette Cooper gets the gig, EU leaning Lib Dems will split in to a new party with pro-EU liberal half of labour.

UKIP merge with what remains of old Labour with a party for the workers and we're back to 3 party politics.

[R K]

Housing boom followed by tax bribes usually works.

Probably assisted by Dave's lurch to the right with his Romanian hate campaign.

[Sour Mash]

It makes sweet FA difference which one of the two 'choices' the general public votes for. The policies they get will be broadly the same with some slight variations depending on which particular set of vested interests the ruling party is beholden to.

The only way to effect change is to turn up at the polls and start voting for some politicians that don't follow the party model. More likely, to turn out and spoil your vote if you feel that no-one on offer really represents your interests as currently the two party revolving door system has everything sewn up.

[zugzwang]

There is no way Labour can get back in with Balls in place - even if we take another dive.

All the 'never voting Tory again' will bottle voting UKIP on the day.

Tories will get a narrow majority and bring Lib Dems back in as a coalition partner on same terms as they have now on condition Cable has a more minor position.

All pledges to pensions will start being caveated, austerity 2.0 will be launched, IR will hit 9%, EU capital controls will be put in place, bail-ins will become the norm.

Milliband resigns, Yvette Cooper gets the gig, EU leaning Lib Dems will split in to a new party with pro-EU liberal half of labour.

UKIP merge with what remains of old Labour with a party for the workers and we're back to 3 party politics.

Hyperinflationary scenario. Either party would be better off losing the election in such circumstances and formulating an anti-capitalist agenda.

Is Balls really more despised by the general public than Osborne? Do they even know who he is? I'll still be having a bet on Labour to win at a canter, but voting UKIP just to cause trouble.

[Billy soy]

The only way we will see change is by bumping up the % of votes for extreme spectrum parties into double figures.

Ukip look and sound appealing because they are a minor change on the order of things, yet upon closer scrutiny they are just the Tory euro sceptic party.

If we saw the YPP, greens or BNP in the headlines with a popular leader the status quo could be challenged. But because of this threat they are not given the oxygen of publicity.

[Sour Mash]

Both parties are obsessed with HPI and their own wealth together with bribing the pensioners to try and get their votes.

If younger adults would actually register to vote and turn up at the polls (if only to spoil their votes) then they might actually get more of a look in.

The pensioners get the money because they tend to get out and use their vote - and the establishment needs the veil of democracy to keep the scam running. Hence if you can raise enough steam electorally speaking, you make yourself eligible for a slice of the bribery slush fund.

[Dorkins]

If younger adults would actually register to vote and turn up at the polls (if only to spoil their votes) then they might actually get more of a look in.

I know you wouldn't think it given the universal acceptance that "young people don't vote", but the majority of under-35s did actually vote in the last general election. It's surprising that the rate was this high given that neither of the two parties expected to gain power was offering them anything at all.

Estimated 2010 general election turnout by age and gender

Age

18-24: 44%

25-34: 55%

35-44: 66%

45-54: 69%

55-64: 73%

65+: 76%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout10.htm

[slacker]

If we saw the YPP, greens or BNP in the headlines with a popular leader the status quo could be challenged. But because of this threat they are not given the oxygen of publicity.

I can think of no precedent where voting for minor parties has had any impact on a GE.

The journalists, Tories etc. know it's a done deal - no opposition has been this close at mid-term and won.

They'll all make it look like a fight but the only fight is whether Tories get the full majority or not.

As I've said before the partnership between Dave and Nick is much deeper than they make out - it's symbiotic they need it to control the extremes in their own parties - when they brief against each other they're probably laughing about it together 2 minutes later - I bet we'll find out later Tory spads wrote some of the LD party conf speeches. If this wasn't the case there would be a lot more friction and LDs would have walked out a few times by now.

Even if Labour inch ahead in GE I think LDs will still coalition with Tories - could you imagine the situation with LDs backing Labour after this 'recovery' then it all going tits under a left coalition.

Osborne still has his tax cuts and minimum wage giveaway to come yet - and remember benefits have barely been cut in this parliament - it's all been talk.

[richc]

The only way we will see change is by bumping up the % of votes for extreme spectrum parties into double figures.

Ukip look and sound appealing because they are a minor change on the order of things, yet upon closer scrutiny they are just the Tory euro sceptic party.

If we saw the YPP, greens or BNP in the headlines with a popular leader the status quo could be challenged. But because of this threat they are not given the oxygen of publicity.

No third party in the UK has ever come to power without a previous fundamental change of voting rights. End of story.

Pretending that UKIP is anything other than a divisive tactic to put Labour in office is delusional. The UK electoral system means that the best a third party can hope for is to be in a coalition government., and that's not going to happen with UKIP.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Worth keeping a bit of perspective on the findings of one poll amongst many, and the parties were closer for large parts of last year than the results of this poll show.

Here's polling since 2010:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

The suggestion of a sea change in voting intentions is a bit premature in my view. Labour are showing a 50+ majority on current polling in the round, which has been reducing but is still solid in terms of governing.

[byron78]

It'll be close.

Whoever was going to vote Tory would have done regardless of data/the economy/anything.

I think quite a lot of folk (i.e the vast majority) might be more inclined to vote tactically against the Tories as I don't personally know many better off under them (although I've personally benefited as a top rate tax payer, f-all of this has trickled down into this country).

Think Labour might bin Balls pre-election as well. Just a hunch.

[Tankus]

There is no way Labour can get back in with Balls in place - even if we take another dive.

Do you think he will survive with just a majority of 1101 down from 8000 at the previous election .

[Sour Mash]

I know you wouldn't think it given the universal acceptance that "young people don't vote", but the majority of under-35s did actually vote in the last general election. It's surprising that the rate was this high given that neither of the two parties expected to gain power was offering them anything at all.

Estimated 2010 general election turnout by age and gender

Age

18-24: 44%

25-34: 55%

35-44: 66%

45-54: 69%

55-64: 73%

65+: 76%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout10.htm

There's a large difference in percentage turnout between the youngest (44%) and oldest (76%) groups, and turnout gets sharply higher as the groups get older - combined with an ageing demographic that means older people have far more votes up for grabs. If there wasn't an electoral payback in cosying up to pensioners vs shafting the young (and social security claimants) then the politicians wouldn't be doing it.

They'll always pick on the group with least political clout when it comes to dishing out the crap. Their aim is to keep themselves in a job which means maximising their votes.

[FallingAwake]

Tories will get a narrow majority and bring Lib Dems back in as a coalition partner on same terms as they have now on condition Cable has a more minor position.

All pledges to pensions will start being caveated, austerity 2.0 will be launched, IR will hit 9%, EU capital controls will be put in place, bail-ins will become the norm.

...and then you woke up and realized it was a wet dream?

[FallingAwake]

If younger adults would actually register to vote and turn up at the polls (if only to spoil their votes) then they might actually get more of a look in.

The pensioners get the money because they tend to get out and use their vote - and the establishment needs the veil of democracy to keep the scam running. Hence if you can raise enough steam electorally speaking, you make yourself eligible for a slice of the bribery slush fund.

I agree, but who EXACTLY should the young vote for? Which party has the young's interest at heart? Precisely none of them, at present.

Of course, it's a Catch 22... the parties don't do much for the young because they don't vote, and they don't vote because the parties don't do much for the young.

[papag]

I know you wouldn't think it given the universal acceptance that "young people don't vote", but the majority of under-35s did actually vote in the last general election. It's surprising that the rate was this high given that neither of the two parties expected to gain power was offering them anything at all.

Estimated 2010 general election turnout by age and gender

Age

18-24: 44%

25-34: 55%

35-44: 66%

45-54: 69%

55-64: 73%

65+: 76%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout10.htm

I dont know any previous Tory voter in the highlighted sections who will ever vote for them again due the theft of saving interest cant believe they are not even trying to address it.

[Dorkins]

If there wasn't an electoral payback in cosying up to pensioners vs shafting the young (and social security claimants) then the politicians wouldn't be doing it.

I think you are overestimating the talents of our political class. They are cosying up to pensioners and shafting the young because this is the model they have inherited, and they will stick with it long after it has clearly stopped working as a method for winning elections (e.g. 3 hung Parliaments in a row and >50% of the electorate either abstaining, spoiling their ballot, or voting outside of the main 3 parties). At some point there will be a huge reward for the first person/party to realise that breaking with this model will win them an election. This is just how human beings work.

[FallingAwake]

I can think of no precedent where voting for minor parties has had any impact on a GE.

(1) Voting for a minor party such as UKIP means the major parties get less of the % of votes, sending a MESSAGE to them.

(2) The 2010 election. Lib Dems will probably never get into sole power in our "First Past The Post" system (making them a "minor party" in that regard), yet they now have an influence over Government policy, being in a Coalition.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, since minor parties apparently have "no impact", people should perpetually vote Red or Blue, or perhaps not vote at all. That's exactly WHY we're in this mess in the first place!

I'm not suggesting UKIP are some kind of magic bullet (I'm actually not massively bothered about Europe to be honest)... BUT by voting for them, it WILL shake things up a bit, and force the two major parties to re-position themselves and actually address their concerns in a serious manner.

For example, I *do* think the people of Britain should be given a say in whether we want to be part of an increasingly federalised Europe... don't you?

If Scotland gets a say in whether to be part of the UK, shouldn't the British people get the same say when it comes to the EU, especially now it's very different from the EEC voted for in the 1970's?

Yet the two major parties have, until recently, been doing everything they can to put this off... with the Lib Dems actively opposed to it.

The more votes UKIP get at the next general election, the more the two parties will be FORCED to address this issue.

[richc]

(1) Voting for a minor party such as UKIP means the major parties get less of the % of votes, sending a MESSAGE to them.

(2) The 2010 election. Lib Dems will probably never get into sole power in our "First Past The Post" system (making them a "minor party" in that regard), yet they now have an influence over Government policy, being in a Coalition.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, since minor parties apparently have "no impact", people should perpetually vote Red or Blue, or perhaps not vote at all. That's exactly WHY we're in this mess in the first place!

I'm not suggesting UKIP are some kind of magic bullet (I'm actually not massively bothered about Europe to be honest)... BUT by voting for them, it WILL shake things up a bit, and force the two major parties to re-position themselves and actually address their concerns in a serious manner.

For example, I *do* think the people of Britain should be given a say in whether we want to be part of an increasingly federalised Europe... don't you?

If Scotland gets a say in whether to be part of the UK, shouldn't the British people get the same say when it comes to the EU, especially now it's very different from the EEC voted for in the 1970's?

Yet the two major parties have, until recently, been doing everything they can to put this off... with the Lib Dems actively opposed to it.

The more votes UKIP get at the next general election, the more the two parties will be FORCED to address this issue.

Really? Can you explain how or why Labour will ever address the Europe issue after UKIP voters put them into office? Europe is the gift that keeps on giving for Labour. It continually splits votes on the right and gives them an easy win. They will NEVER resolve something that gives them such an electoral edge. The immigrants, public sector troughers, and welfare scroungers who make up the Labour Party do not care about the EU (they don't pay for it and it doesn't affect their welfare payments) so Labour is perfectly happy to continue ceding more and more sovereignty to an unelected super-state.

Edited January 14, 2014 by richc

[slacker]

(1) Voting for a minor party such as UKIP means the major parties get less of the % of votes, sending a MESSAGE to them.

There is no message if you get no seats. The LDs get enough seats to be relevant in coalition situations.

UKIP GE vote will be down on last GE. They're an EU election / right wing protest vehicle - they have no relevance in a GE.

I would rather that wasn't the case - but that's the reality of FPTP.

What happens when things are not broken, as will be the position at 2015 GE, is that the opposition has no motivation to vote. So even though Labour are polling close now - a lot of those just won't bother to vote on the day (benefits have not been cut for this reason).

Whereas the threat of the not-broken position we have now becoming broken under Balls is enough to motivate people to vote T/LD.

As someone else just mentioned this all lines up to a pre-election Labour meltdown reshuffle.

Also - to the guy who doesn't think IR will get to 9% in next parliament - watch it - it might go to -1% first but it has to get to 5%+ and won't stop there - long term averages guarantee it - there is no 'this time is different' in economics.

[tomandlu]

Is Balls really more despised by the general public than Osborne?

He's despised by many ex-labour voters (myself included). Getting rid of him wouldn't be enough to get me voting labour again, but it might be enough for many. He's the most visible (and risible) survivor from the Blair/Brown years.

Osborne is irrelevant to me.