Poll low for Labour

fluffymike Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The latest Com Res poll has the lowest ever poll-rating for Labour.



Tories 45%
Labour 24%
Lib Dems 16%


At what point will someone sit up and take notice that the current right-wing Labour approach is now totally killing the party?

This is the lowest Labour Poll Rating for ages - the papers are saying the lowest ever - and now the Tories are out polling us by nearly 2:1 ....

For crying out loud - take notice and do something!!!!!!!!!!

tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Poll low for Labour | 32 comments (32 topical)

Re: Poll low for Labour (#1)

by doktorbuk on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM GMT

One interesting figure in the polls is the increase in Green Party support (up almost 3 percentage points). One wonders if there's an anti-establishment vote increasing more than ever, if you look at the H&H result (the Greens, EngDems and NF all polling highly), and the highest number of indepedent candidates elected to Welsh councils.


Re: Poll low for Labour (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM GMT

At what point will someone sit up and take notice that the current right-wing Labour approach is now totally killing the party?

I'm sorry, but that's just deluded analysis. Where on earth do you think we'd be with a McDonnell-style leadership of the party? Behind the LibDems by a long way I can tell you.

The British people don't want a government like that anymore and you're going to have to accept it.

Do you not find it strange that you say Labour is unpopular because it is too right-wing, yet the party which is 20-odd points ahead of us is further to the right of us?!


Re: Poll low for Labour (#3)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM GMT

Do you not find it strange that you say Labour is unpopular because it is too right-wing, yet the party which is 20-odd points ahead of us is further to the right of us?!

NorthernMonkey

It's a moot point really as to whether the Tories are further to the right. I strongly believe they would be further to the right in practice in government, but in many ways the two parties are pitching to identical ground. On civil liberties we have, unfortunately, swapped places from our traditional positions.

There are many ways that Labour could differentiate itself from the Tories by pursuing popular policies to the left. A windfall tax on the energy companies, getting the super rich to pay tax, a higher rate of tax for high earners, halting NHS privatisations, raising child tax credit, restoring the earnings link on pensions, free school meals for all and so on (as various people have spelt out in other threads). This is hardly radical socialism I know - it's more or less taking us back to a social democratic agenda, but it would be an improvement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#8)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:28:56 PM GMT

Many of the things you mention have already been done or are in the pipeline. eg restoring the link between earnings and pensions will happen in 2012 (it can't be done earlier 'cause there is no money for it). The levy on North Sea oil was increased from 10% to 20% in 2005 (but we also said there'd be no more increases this parliament).

The child tax credit is also equally substantial (much more than people realise). It's payable till income reaches £50,000, after which it is tapered away and disappears when you earn £58175. Childcare costs are also added in, up to £175 per week or £300 if two or more children). The best thing I can do to illustrate this is to quote from this worksheet, so you can see for yourself: 

Oscar and Izzy work full time and have two children. Oscar has self employment income of £10,400 p.a. and Izzy is employed with income of £26,000 p.a. They pay eligible childcare costs of £180 per week.

Their entitlement to Working Tax Credit/ Child Tax Credit in 2008/09 is:

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="400" border="0"><tr><td width="70%"> </td><td valign="top" align="right">£</td></tr><tr><td width="70%">Basic (Working Tax Credit)</td><td valign="top" align="right">1,800</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Couple addition (Working Tax Credit)</td><td valign="top" align="right">1,770</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">30 hours per week (Working Tax Credit)</td><td valign="top" align="right">735</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Childcare 70% of £180 x 52 weeks</td><td valign="top" align="right">7,488</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Child Tax Credit - 2 children @ £1,845</td><td valign="top" align="right">4,170</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Child Tax Credit - Family element</td><td valign="top" align="right">545</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%"> </td><td valign="top" align="right"> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%"> </td><td valign="top" align="right">_______</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%"> </td><td valign="top" align="right">16,508</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Less (10,400 + 26,000 - 6,420) @ 39%</td><td valign="top" align="right">11,692</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="70%">Child Tax Credit
</td><td valign="top" align="right">£4,816</td></tr></table>
They get all their normal personal personal allowances of £6035 each. This essentially means that out of their joint income of £36400, £16886 is tax free. And the basic income tax rate of 20% is the lowest it's ever been (it was 23% in 1997). N.I. is 11% (it was 10% in 1997).

It drives me crazy when people claim that this current Labour government is "right-wing". Hah! This is the most redistributive government we have ever had in the UK. More so than Attlee's govt. If you are poor (or even medium income) and have children, you pay very little tax, but are still entitled to use the full services of the NHS, and other state institutions, which themselves have been improved out of all recognition.

The problem is that people don't know we are redistributive - even some of our own supporters seem to not know what we've done. It's become "fashionable" for some to claim that we are just like the Tories. Bah humbug. The history of Tory governments is that the put tax up for the poor to pay for a cut for the rich - thus the 1981 Thatcher/Howe budget froze the personal allowance (at a time when inflation was running at 18%) and abolished the starting 25% tax rate (so that people on low incomes had to pay 30%). The 1979 budget increased VAT from 8.5% to 15% - all so they could cut the top rate of tax.

Can people not see that what this Labour government had done is different to what Tories did? What's the matter with everyone?

The tories are ahead in the polls because people are frightened about the economy and because the Tories have claimed that they would somehow have borrowed less than us, while spending more and cutting tax at the same time - and our side has been useless at rebutting these fantastic promises.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#9)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM GMT

Yikes, that table came out wrong! here's the figures:


 £
Basic (Working Tax Credit) 1,800
Couple addition (Working Tax Credit) 1,770
30 hours per week (Working Tax Credit) 735
Childcare 70% of £180 x 52 weeks 7,488
Child Tax Credit - 2 children @ £1,845 4,170
Child Tax Credit - Family element 545
 
 _______
 16,508
Less (10,400 + 26,000 - 6,420) @ 39% 11,692
Child Tax Credit
 £4,816


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#10)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM GMT

Labour has done good things - there is no dispute about that. Public services are immeasurably improved over the Tories since 1997, especially health - which is fantastically better than it was, also education and aspects of transport. We should really make a lot out of this, and far more than we do.

Where Labour has been disappointing, to me, is in areas like:
Rising inequality of income (which is where I don't agree that it has been "redistributive" despite excellent initiatives like child tax credits and Sure Start)
Decreasing social mobility
Tuition fees
Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
Creeping/stealth privatisation in various aspects of government, especially health
Attacks on civil liberties

So, for me it has been a mixed bag - but, nevertheless a Labour government is hugely better for most people than a Tory one. And I don't believe the liberal noises coming from Cameron.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#12)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:25:25 PM GMT

I'm afraid I disagree with you on redistribution. If you have children and you work, Labour has been fantastically supportive, people in this category don't pay much tax at all. This is why in the last two elections (2001 and 2005) our main support has been from the key 30-45 demographic. They all work and have children. The dip in the polls has come because they are worried about the economy. If the Tories made an attack on child tax credits (which they are dying to do), this group would swing sharply back to labour. If the economy stabalised, we would also see swing back to labour among this group.

The inequality of income you mention relates to a certain underclass, who are usually on drugs and therefore don't work and are unemployable (and if they don't work, they don't benefit from tax credits). Obviously the thing to do would be to get them off drugs and cleaned up. But this is easier said than done. Despite everything that govt and family do, some people still end up hurting themselves. 

It's possible that some people go onto drugs simply because they are hedonistic personalities - take David Cameron: despite priviledge and wealth, he still ended up doing drugs at Eton. And while he has carefully said that he hasn't done Class A drugs since he became an MP in 2001, what about before that? No one knows. But the specific wording he has used in his denial is thought-provoking to say the least. Why did he experiment with drugs? Were his parents lacking in affection? Did they not give him proper guidance? Were the teachers at his school lacking in basic duty of care? Did the govt of the day (Tories) not put out an anti-drugs message strongly enough? Too much money? Boredom? Or is it simply that he had an addictive personality and wanted to try things out, and there was nothing govt, family or school could do about it?

Addiction to drugs is similar to addiction to cigarettes, and despite everything the govt has done people still smoke. And smoking leads to poverty as surely as drugs. Most of the people I see in rented accomodation are smokers - they are literally burning their money on a daily basis and as a result can't cobble together enough savings to raise a deposit for a house. And later in life they'll get sick and die horribly. What's the govt to do with people who are self-destructive like this?  


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#15)

by stuartm on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:37 PM GMT

Snowflake what planet are you on!!!!

For families on low income( which includes many of the local authority workers on strike last week) they had a tax increase when the 10p starting rate was abolished.


The standard rate of PAYE is 20%. But rich people can reclassify their income as dvidends and pay only 18%.

This country is a tax haven for the very rich. The low paiod pay a higher marginal rate of tax than the rich.


The tax cuts which Gordon Brown introduced disproportionatly helped the very rich.


If you can't see a widening inequality of income when all sensible commentators can then I suggest you remove your rose tinted spectacles  


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#17)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM GMT

stuartm - where have you been! The personal allowance has been increased to £6035 to compensate for the loss of the 10p rate. And people who work and have children pay very little tax - see the example I gave earlier.

As I said before, the income inequality problem relates to the low income of those who don't work, eg people on drugs. They do not get tax credits and the 10p rate and personal allowance don't apply to them as they don't work.

I agree it is dreadful that we have some people who have made themselves unemployable - but I don't notice any concrete solutions from you as to how to get these people off drugs and cleaned up to a state where someone would employ them. All you seem to be doing is shouting "New Labour is awful". You don't have any solutions, your whole strategy is to try to brainwash our core voters into thinking that New Labour are "just like" the tories, so that they abstain and let the Tories in. Manchurian strategy or what?


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#16)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:38:47 PM GMT

Well we should be doing more to publicise the benefits to this group. However I believe income inequality has increased and this is more to do with the rich getting richer faster than the poor. Also the lower incomes have surely been driven down as manufacturing has been replaced by poorer paid service workers and "outsourcing" has replaced secure pensionable employment with low paid agency work?

We should remember that it is the perceived unfairness of inequality that is almost as important as absolute poverty. We should have done more to reign in or tax some of the ridiculous excess at the top end (so-called fat cat salaries and city bonuses).

On drugs you are correct of course. The only practical policy is decriminalisation which would have immediate and profound effects - cutting crime enormously, reintegrating people into society, destroying the black market for the big criminals, limiting damage to people's lives and health, limiting further addiction, rehabilitating addicts who want help to come off, and so on. It is such an obvious policy - I can only conclude that the government believes it would be politically unnacceptable to so-called Middle England. It requires real courage to do.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#4)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM GMT

I tend to use this argument a lot, but I think the whole left = unpopular, right = popular argument is moot. We didn't become unpopular because we moved to the left we became unpopular simply because we've been in power a long time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM GMT

Yes I agree. And the very fact that we have been in government for a long time shows that the New Labour project was successful.

Pre-Blair, we'd never managed to serve two full terms, let alone three.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#6)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM GMT

The New Labour Project was successful in various ways for a period. Unfortunately it damaged the party and our core support by pitching so far to the right (so-called "triangulation"). Personally I have only ever seen myself as a member of the Labour Party - not the New Labour Party, and I think many members would share this perspective.

Now the New Labour project is dead. And the sooner we come to terms with this and move on the better.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#11)

by ppbarrett on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM GMT

I wouldn’t go as far to say that the New Labour Project is dead, I think we have reached a point where we have been in government for so long that our ideas and our narrative have temporarily petered out. Moreover, as with any government of any orientation, it is very difficult to remain popular over an extended period in office as people naturally, and often quite rightly, associate the ills of our modern era to us and only us.

If and when our party does leave office, I can’t see the New Labour project being cast-aside completely. After all, if we are to leave office in the midst of an economic downturn, our return to office will be, at least in part, based on our ability to convince the electorate that we can be trusted with the economy. The key feature of New Labour in the late 1990s was that for perhaps the first time in a long time, we were viewed at least with the same, if not higher, regard for our economic competence than the Tories.

That being said, there is a lot more to be said for winning votes than just economics, and that is where perhaps New Labour needs to be ‘tamed’. Now, or in opposition, we need to find a narrative to what we are doing and that should come about in a progressive agenda on social issues, more specifically on social justice. This is not to say that New Labour hasn’t been doing this already – snowflake’s post above explains its perfectly – we just need to intensify it, publicise it and place it in the context of a broader motivation. Economic competence and being able to capture the agenda with a coherent and concise social agenda are key to our future success – something that the New Labour project has offered in the past and will offer it in the future.

What we are seeing now is not the death of New Labour, but the unfortunate demise of one of its architects. We are behind in the polls because people no longer believe we have the talent and competency to steer us through difficult times and because after 11 years we have accumulated, for various reasons, our fair share of unpopularity. I’m still convinced that New Labour will offer us the best chance ‘after Brown’ even though admittedly, there is a lot that can be improved.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:33:53 PM GMT

FR, if you seriously think that the next time Labour gets into government it will be anything other than a New Labour administration then you're very much deluded.

There will never be an Old Labour style government running this country again.

If we do lose in 2010 and then do what we did after 1979 (ie. ignore the public and go on a selfish loony-left binge) then expect us to not even be the Official Opposition anymore.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#7)

by LabourMatters on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM GMT

It's the economy, stupid!


Re: Poll low for Labour (#14)

by fluffymike on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:23 PM GMT

It's Capitalism, stupid! :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#13)

by madasafish on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM GMT

It is indeed the economy.

I expect gold prices to soar as inflation rises... Money supply should be cut to reduce inflation.. BUT politically it would be a disaster.

The looming budget deficit is going to snowball unfortuantely and render much of the money spent wasted. Taxes should be raised... nbut they will not be.


I'm afariad Labour is leaving an economic mess for the Conservatives which will cause a great deal of pain to sort out.

I'm expecting double digit inflation by 2010. And a recession in 2009. All the indicators show it. A less bad rerun of 1979-80.


Re: Poll low for Labour (#18)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM GMT

Hmm. Every single world recession to date has cut demand and hence cut the price of oil and reduced inflation. The price was circa $30 pb from 1978 to 1981, but as the world recession of 1981 to 1983 bit hard, the price fell and reached $13 by 1985. During the dot com boom, the price hit $27 in 2000, and then fell back in the dotcom/post9/11 bust. 

The price has been high at the moment, because the oil markets believe that China and India had decoupled from the western world and would continue to boom ad infinitum. However it looks like the Chinese economy is slowing (though it's hard to tell as the Chinese govt likes to smooth it's official figures, we won't know for sure for a couple of quarters, and they will endeavour to show a smooth slowdown). The oil price has already fallen from $147 peak to below $130 as a result.

I'm sceptical about the east decoupling from the west - globalisation means we are all even more tightly linked than ever. The way the US subprime business has started to hurt the eurozone is an example (only a few months ago people were saying that the eurozone had decoupled from the USA).


If you are speculating, I'd advise you to be very careful. The four most expensive words in English are "this time it's different".

The best indicator of what is going on in the world economy is shipping and the Baltic Dry Index. The index peaked at 11689 on June 5th and is now 9012 as of 18th July. That to me indicates slowdown of activity in the east - which will have an impact on oil prices.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#20)

by rosie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:58:27 PM GMT

If the Labour party leave government with their reputation on the economy in ruins an 18 year spell in the wilderness is the very least we can look forward to. In other words the economy under pinned everything. Voters were prepared to put up with a lot they didn't like, as long as they felt well off. If Labour get kicked out in 2010 and then the economy recovers whilst the Tories are in office they are going to have a Mugabe style grip on power for decades!


Re: Poll low for Labour (#25)

by Floating voter on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:05:21 PM GMT

"If Labour get kicked out in 2010..."

If Labour get as far as being able to have an election 2010. If the muttering campaign against Gordon doesn't stop you'll be doing well to get to 2009. Divided parties are rife with MPs looking after their own core vote and doing what they can to ensure their own survival even if that means burying the party.


".... and then the economy recovers whilst the Tories are in office they are going to have a Mugabe style grip on power for decades!"

What I suspect will happen, if things get worse, is that Labour voters will vote Lib Dem because true left wingers won't vote tory. The thought of coming in 3rd may not be popular around here, but think what coming 2nd would do to the "beard and sandals" brigade - they would have to get off that fence and make some sensible decisions. Talk about a shock to the system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#26)

by ppbarrett on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:51:07 PM GMT

The chances of us coming third are minimal, for that to occur, there would at the very least need to be a popular swing to the Lib Dems which isn’t happening, and is unlikely to happened. Moreover, ‘true left wingers’, whatever you may mean by that, are equally unlikely to go Lib Dem given the rightwards direction that Clegg is taking them in. Our core working class vote has never really been threatened by Liberals – our inner cities tend to be contested by the Tories (I think) – and to be honest, they don’t stand to gain much by going ‘yellow’. We may lose some middle class votes to them, but they are more likely to go blue than yellow. We’ll go no worse than second.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#27)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:23:13 AM GMT

Yes, noone in their right mind could switch to the LibDems on the basis that they were to the left of Labour. Clegg is a huge disappointment because a Liberal Democrat party to the left of Labour would be quite interesting.

But we still need to think about how we can win, not come second!


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#28)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:46:15 AM GMT

I agree with what you say. In my post I did say "...if things get worse..." and I mean "a lot worse". If the polls are to be believed there is not a great deal of separation between the LibDems and Labour. When I said "true left wingers" I meant those who could never, ever vote tory but under the circumstances could not vote labour. It seems to me that the LibDems are the only choice for such people - other than not voting at all.

Frankly, I'm amazed you are in the position you are in. As little as 12 months ago, nobody would have given odds for this....


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#21)

by rosie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:59:33 PM GMT

This is an interesting take on the poll (from the spectator):

Looking at the numbers from that Independent poll, one thing stands out to me: today, more people agree with Blair’s decision on Iraq than support Labour under Gordon Brown. Labour has support from 24 percent of the electorate while 26 percent disagree with the assertion that "Britain should never have become involved in Iraq".It says something about how low Labour’s standing currently is that Blair’s supposedly most unpopular decision commands more support than the party does. It makes a mockery of all those Brownites who used to say that Labour could only reconnect with the electorate once Blair and the stigma of Iraq had been removed.


Re: Poll low for Labour (#22)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:48:49 PM GMT

It depends what shifting to the left actually means. Sometimes we have to be careful to remember what Oscar Wilde once said: "Each man kills the thing he loves."

Thatcher was a methodist. Yes she was a revolutionary capitalist, but she had a nostalgia for 60's Britain. The 1860's. Her Britain included the monarchy and the church. Yet she helped to kill the church with Sunday shopping, and helped to kill the respect of the monarchy by allowing the Republican, Rupert Murdoch, to break royal scandals in his paper.

I have seen suggestions for relinking pensions, and abolishing tuition fees. I personally believe abolishing student grants in the first term, blighted the good done in that term. But the system many in the Left seem to be nostalgic for, is one that ends up being a middle class subsidy.

Instead, they should argue that the funding model moves more towards one of a graduate tax model. That way, it is free, but does not cost poorer people.

Relinking pensions, seems to be another redistribution to the rich. The failures of means testing can be fixed. We have a door-to-door headcount for our cencus. So get DWP officials to do door to door counts for tax credits.

If we reverted to old fashioned university funding, and universal pensions, isntead of targeted towards the poor who don't have private pensions or assets, we would kill what we love. Redistribution.

Of course we should be clear to state our Labour values in welfare (stupid Purnell), housing, prisons, crime and other areas.

But there are solutions that can please both wings of the party.

A good example should be an alternative White Paper to the stupid welfare proposals of Purnell. We should emphasise the 'Active', in an Active Labour Market Policy.
Don't have workfare, have therapyfare. For many on IB, they are depressed. So people have to have compulsory CBT if they are depressed. Implement Carol Black's solutions for IB. Extend the New Deal to all age groups, with community work (not sentences) for those who don't get jobs, like visiting the elderly. Then have cutbacks for the few who refuse to go on the New Deal. Gradually extend over say, a two year period, the NMW to a living wage.

Oh, and have a 50% top rate for those earning over £100k, and maybe higher rates, like 60% on over £150k, to fund a SureStart for all areas. Unaffordable childcare is perhaps the biggest reason for many single mothers not working, and a huge number of people in poverty are the low paid, most of the low paid are women. And most female associated jobs are low paid, like cleaning, caring, classroom assistance.

If you increase the wages of the poorest, they are less dependant on tax credits. Also, we should phase out HB, instead of immedietly withdrawing it. A New Deal mark II, should deliver massive investment into our heartlands, which also happen to be the poorest, where there are no jobs: the ex-mining areas. Towns like Easington have inequalities that are so shocking. Over half of homes have someone with a long term illness (incidentally, we should give cash to unpaid carers). And making sure that all jobs have the option of being part-time, could allow many in these areas to have even more cash. Who would have thought feminism, and helping the families of ex-miners could be benefited with just one policy?

If others don't get work, as well as ensuring community work, we should restart lifelong, and adult education. Get schemes and organisations like Pathways and Tomorrow's People to get people back into work.


If the government did this for example, it would be a fine policy. It could excite our abandoned heartlands, and wouldn't exacerbate the right-wing lies of people on benefit.


Re: Poll low for Labour (#24)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM GMT

Why do you favour a graduate tax over the current system?

What exactly are your problems with the Welfare green paper?


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#23)

by Anonymous X on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:54 PM GMT

I think too many of you have put too much faith in the tax credits system. Now, I don't want the system abolished as the Tories may possibly do, but it's nightmarishly complex to apply for, and there's been too many horror stories about overpayments.


Re: Poll low for Labour (#30)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM GMT

Underpayments and overpayments will be part of any system. Part of the problem is this: overpayments are often made when families don't declare rises in household income, or when children turn 18. Underpayments happen when recipients don't claim when their incomes drop, or have another child.

What we have to do, is raise the NMW to a living wage, to reduce the cost of tax credits. This needs to be at the centre of welfare reform proposals.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#29)

by NB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM GMT

The reason for this poll lead is simple. People don't like or trust Gordon and don't think his government is competent.  People do like and trust Cameron and are prepared to give the Tories the benefit of the doubt.  Policies are pretty well irrelevant.

Gordon is still leader is because PLP MPs calculate that taking anyone weilding the knife would be seen as a traitor and potential replacements would prefer to take over without having lost an election.  Someone needs to put the interests of the country and the party above self-interest... come on Jack(?)


Re: Poll low for Labour (#31)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:02:05 PM GMT

But most judgements as to the competence of incompetence of the government are based on what they read in the press. The press are pretty poor judges of competence.

Most "proof" of government incompetence tends to lists of scandals that are often both beyond the control of ministers and way out of proportion in comparison to the actual consequences of the scandal.


[ Parent ]

Re: Poll low for Labour (#32)

by NB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM GMT

Andreas: that's an interesting point but I wonder whether it is true? Firstly, I'm not sure how many voters actually read the opinion/politics pages in the press.  Secondly, an awful lot of people have direct experience of the incompetence of the government. For example:

  1. Anyone who shops knows that inflation is out of control. If they know economics they will know that it is made much worse by the lack of confidence in the £ due to Gordon's mismangement.
  2. Anyone on the Child Benefit database got a letter apologising for the loss of their data. Those who read the Poynter report know that this was because of the total incompetence with which personal data was treated, exacerbated by the incompetent banging together of HMRC and the insane over-complexity of the tax and benefits system.
  3. Many people now know people who have lost their jobs due to the boom and bust in the housing and construction sectors.

Of course anyone who has direct dealings with Civil Servants of any seniority or people who work with MPs gets pretty graphic reports of the serial blunders, by no means all of which reach the press, even now.


[ Parent ]

Poll low for Labour | 32 comments (32 topical)