UPDATE: we are now less than a pregnancy away from the next general election.

Scottish polling suggests the SNP will make a double point gain this side of the border and are 4 behind Labour. The 15 point climb is entirely at the expense of the Lib Dems who have dropped to less than 5%!!

 

No way they hold onto more than the northern islands. They are finished on the mainland.

I can only see them holding on to that if by next May none of the parties has a substantial offer on devolution, which would be the only reason why it would make sense to vote SNP for a Westminster election.

Where else would the LibDem voters go? They are finished up here for a generation. People here vote LibDem to keep the Tories out not to let them in. That was the ultimate betrayal to the Scottish electorate. All these LibDem voters aren't going to switch to Labour, they'd have been there before otherwise and Milliband is as inspiring as a dirty wet sock. This will be a mirror of the Scottish election and you'll see LibDem areas turn to SNP because they are the best option.

 

Plus in a post referendum world you can bet that the SNP will campaign on a platform of making sure they keep their promises.

A lot of those Lib Dem voters HAVE switched to Labour. We aren't at 29% for a reason, we've taken back the likes of Glasgow council for a reason. It's not going to be a mirror of the Scottish election given voters can quite clearly see the difference between electing an SNP administration at Holyrood and electing a seventh SNP MP. Miliband might not be especially inspiring but for left-leaning voters that pissed off about the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Tories, a lot of them are going to very much know the difference between a Labour and a Tory government.

 

Sure, the SNP will gain some of them, but I'd bet my life that the SNP voteshare on May 7th won't be near what it is in a poll days after the SNP have had the biggest piece of publicity they will likely ever have. For the majority of those voters, the question of the next election will be whether they want a Labour or a Tory government.

God, I can't believe the Lib Dems decided to destroy themselves politically with the tuition fees when they were getting 33% in opinion polls pre-election.

This is a little off from some of the previous conversation, but it relates to an ongoing theme that we've discussed in here a lot (and probably the ultimate overarching debate Danny and I have, which is on whether an unashamedly economic left-wing prospectus is a good idea for Labour in the long-run). I was re-reading a lot of the accompanying articles on Revolt on the Right recently, and I found a passage that really stuck out for me.

 

When Ed Miliband argues that big business takes advantage of ordinary people, employees on zero-hour contracts are being exploited by management, that the rich exempt themselves from the rules that apply to others, and that ordinary workers are not benefitting from a recovery for the rich, Ukip voters agree with him. On these core economic issues, Farage and Ukip do not divide the right. They divide the left.

 

British Election Study Internet Panel 2014-15

This raises an obvious but also awkward question for progressives. If Ukip's struggling, pessimistic and left-behind voters find these economic messages appealing, why are they supporting Farage, not Miliband?

 

The problem for Labour is that these voters no longer think about politics in general, or Labour in particular, in economic terms. Labour has encouraged this: New Labour played down traditional leftwing ideology in favour of social liberalism and pragmatic centrism. Now many voters with longstanding "old left" economic values associate Labour more with "new left" social liberalism: feminism, multiculturalism and support for immigration.

 

Ukip's rise has exposed this division on the left and made it harder to heal. Many of the "new left" voters attracted to Labour by its social liberalism cannot stomach Ukip voters' strong opposition to immigration, which they regard as an expression of ignorance and prejudice, and so refuse to engage with "old left" voters on the economic issues where the two groups share common ground.

 

Conversely, "old left" voters retain a strong distrust of Labour's middle-class elites, after decades of feeling ignored and marginalised as New Labour chased the middle-class swing vote, and cannot abide lectures from privileged "new left" activists about the virtues of immigration and diversity.

 

Tony Blair's winning recipe in 1997 was to bury the traditional "old left" Labour ideology, gambling that he could expand Labour's coalition without losing traditional support, as the voters who endorsed it had nowhere else to go. Nigel Farage's rise has made this Blairite balancing act impossible. Ukip has divided the left, splitting the old from the new, and cutting Labour off from struggling voters it seeks to champion.

 

I've doubted before that an economically left prospectus on its own is what would win a lot of these left-leaning Ukip voters back, and I think this keeps me in that view - without any ground being given on social liberalism (even if it's just non-metropolitan candidates/a non-metropolitan leader - though I worry that wouldn't be enough) I just don't see it.

 

Speaking personally, I've had a little bit of success persuading a couple of left-ish Ukip voters recently to vote Labour, but it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time.

 

1. Letting them vent their anger

2. Not correcting them when they come out with something that's either a media myth or just plain untrue ('my daughter's school is 99, 98% immigrants', et al)

3. Only after that acknowledging that it's totally understandable why they'd be voting Ukip 'given all of that' (I haven't been able to think of a non-patronising way to imply that most of what they've just said isn't true, and a patronising tone is the ultimate kryptonite for Ukip voters in terms of making a connection with them)

4. Before saying that Ukip imply all of the problems on schools/jobs/housing/wages/etc. would end tomorrow if we got rid of all immigrants, but that Labour are actually trying to solve the root problems as even before a lot of immigrants arrived, there just weren't enough jobs/houses/high enough wages etc. to begin with as these problems go back decades

5. So we're trying to solve this by committing to building 200,000 new homes per year until 2020/having a jobs guarantee for all under 25s out of work for a year/increasing the minimum wage/clamping down on agencies that only hire foreign workers

 

That's the only way I've found to pivot all these issues into getting our economic platform to appeal, and to be honest I worry that that argument above just isn't enough (and god knows how you'd go about doing it nationally - most left-types would blanch at the prospect of admitting it's understandable why someone would vote Ukip and attack us for not immediately confronting it if they have bigoted views, even though that never gets you anywhere other than a shouting match on the doorstep) and some might go back to Ukip just because we're too far away from where they are socially.

 

But I'd find it incredibly difficult to be in a Labour Party that tried to meet Ukip halfway on social issues, and don't think the solution is just trumpeting our socially liberal positions even more, as I don't think there are enough voters out there that would agree with us socially who don't already rule us out because of economic disagreement (although I think potentially there are a lot who would agree with us socially and be open to us economically, but disagree with us on valence issues around Ed Miliband. For obvious reasons, finding out how many of those we can win over isn't something we can find out any time before the next election.). This problem's only going to get worse, especially if Ukip win the Heywood and Middleton by-election at the same time as the Clacton one next month (as a couple of media murmurs are suggesting - although hopefully that's just expectations management to make it look like a big win if it's a Labour hold). I'm pretty worried about where, for example, an Andy Burnham leadership would take Labour given he's well known for having some of those socially conservative credentials, while at the same time being incredibly conflicted about it as that's one of the few obvious ways to win back that vote and make Labour governments more likely.

 

This is probably how a lot of the Labour left felt in the late 80s/early 90s, isn't it?

This is a little off from some of the previous conversation, but it relates to an ongoing theme that we've discussed in here a lot (and probably the ultimate overarching debate Danny and I have, which is on whether an unashamedly economic left-wing prospectus is a good idea for Labour in the long-run). I was re-reading a lot of the accompanying articles on Revolt on the Right recently, and I found a passage that really stuck out for me.

I've doubted before that an economically left prospectus on its own is what would win a lot of these left-leaning Ukip voters back, and I think this keeps me in that view - without any ground being given on social liberalism (even if it's just non-metropolitan candidates/a non-metropolitan leader - though I worry that wouldn't be enough) I just don't see it.

 

Speaking personally, I've had a little bit of success persuading a couple of left-ish Ukip voters recently to vote Labour, but it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time.

 

1. Letting them vent their anger

2. Not correcting them when they come out with something that's either a media myth or just plain untrue ('my daughter's school is 99, 98% immigrants', et al)

3. Only after that acknowledging that it's totally understandable why they'd be voting Ukip 'given all of that' (I haven't been able to think of a non-patronising way to imply that most of what they've just said isn't true, and a patronising tone is the ultimate kryptonite for Ukip voters in terms of making a connection with them)

4. Before saying that Ukip imply all of the problems on schools/jobs/housing/wages/etc. would end tomorrow if we got rid of all immigrants, but that Labour are actually trying to solve the root problems as even before a lot of immigrants arrived, there just weren't enough jobs/houses/high enough wages etc. to begin with as these problems go back decades

5. So we're trying to solve this by committing to building 200,000 new homes per year until 2020/having a jobs guarantee for all under 25s out of work for a year/increasing the minimum wage/clamping down on agencies that only hire foreign workers

 

That's the only way I've found to pivot all these issues into getting our economic platform to appeal, and to be honest I worry that that argument above just isn't enough (and god knows how you'd go about doing it nationally - most left-types would blanch at the prospect of admitting it's understandable why someone would vote Ukip and attack us for not immediately confronting it if they have bigoted views, even though that never gets you anywhere other than a shouting match on the doorstep) and some might go back to Ukip just because we're too far away from where they are socially.

 

But I'd find it incredibly difficult to be in a Labour Party that tried to meet Ukip halfway on social issues, and don't think the solution is just trumpeting our socially liberal positions even more, as I don't think there are enough voters out there that would agree with us socially who don't already rule us out because of economic disagreement (although I think potentially there are a lot who would agree with us socially and be open to us economically, but disagree with us on valence issues around Ed Miliband. For obvious reasons, finding out how many of those we can win over isn't something we can find out any time before the next election.). This problem's only going to get worse, especially if Ukip win the Heywood and Middleton by-election at the same time as the Clacton one next month (as a couple of media murmurs are suggesting - although hopefully that's just expectations management to make it look like a big win if it's a Labour hold). I'm pretty worried about where, for example, an Andy Burnham leadership would take Labour given he's well known for having some of those socially conservative credentials, while at the same time being incredibly conflicted about it as that's one of the few obvious ways to win back that vote and make Labour governments more likely.

 

This is probably how a lot of the Labour left felt in the late 80s/early 90s, isn't it?

 

And how many of them mentioned the deficit? :P

 

It depends what you mean by 'social liberal' -- just immigration? I really don't think for most of these people that gay rights, women's rights and general race issues would be a "deal-breaker" even if they don't necessarily agree totally with them -- there's left-wing parties in Spain, France and indeed Scotland which have won over these types of people recently despite having generally liberal social policies, the only difference was they didn't make them the MOST important things and put strongly leftwing economic policies that would obviously help poor people at the centre. (Labour quite obviously does not have such economic policies at the moment, so it's no wonder people are not going to be convinced.)

They're the ones I mentioned who agree with us socially but not economically/on valence. In terms of how far the party has to travel to pick those up versus how far we'd have to travel to pick up UKIP voters, the former is more believable, coherent, and doable in eight months than the latter unless there's a palace coup by a previously unforeseen mass of Blue Labour MPs, which I don't see possible (although if 'Danczuk 4 Leader' ever happens I reserve the right to claim prophecy and state the last half of that sentence never existed)

 

It's more the older, disaffected vote. A lot of them are women so they wouldn't be totally opposed to feminism, though a lot of those were stay at home mums (either through choice or not) so probably wouldn't see it as a 100% good thing, or would buy into the 'I don't hate men and burn bras' definition of it; it's something that comes up in the 'good old days' rants you get from some of the men (along with gay rights stuff - let's not forget that gay marriage was one of the biggest motors of UKIP support in 2012 along with the budget). I don't think it's so much a deal-breaker as something which goes along with all the other things which they see as a symbol of metropolitan liberalism - hence why I think representatives could be the obvious low-hanging fruit as a symbol of change - but I think there's an element to it there, but that immigration is a first-order issue. I also worry that as there's very little we can do on immigration without pulling out of the EU/declaring an end to all non-EU immigration, LGBT/female/BAME-related things would be something an avowedly social conservative economically left candidate elected to reach out to that vote would go for.

 

I think the other big difference we probably have with Spain and Scotland is the prevalence of media bias and focus on blaming immigrants and highlighting cases to illustrate 'what's wrong with the country'. I doubt it's as prevalent in Spain and England was always a more natural scapegoat than immigrants for any ills in Scotland, especially with the use of oil money in the 80s for tax cuts which primarily went to the south east. And in France I don't think it's the case that left-wing parties have won those people at all, unless we're defining Front National as left-wing. Melenchon did fairly well, but given the long-standing multipolarity of French politics, I imagine if the UK were equivalent and you split the 40% UK Labour vote in 2012 ideologically into similar strands if we went for a multiparty system you'd get roughly the same result of 11% for the avowedly radical left candidate and 28% for the mainstream left candidate.

The incoherence of UKIP voters can be summed up by one of the findings from the latest Ashcroft poll. When UKIP voters were asked to select the main reasons for not voting Tory, one-third of them said it was because there was a risk that the UK would vote to leave the EU in a referendum :huh:

They're the ones I mentioned who agree with us socially but not economically/on valence. In terms of how far the party has to travel to pick those up versus how far we'd have to travel to pick up UKIP voters, the former is more believable, coherent, and doable in eight months than the latter unless there's a palace coup by a previously unforeseen mass of Blue Labour MPs, which I don't see possible (although if 'Danczuk 4 Leader' ever happens I reserve the right to claim prophecy and state the last half of that sentence never existed)

 

It's more the older, disaffected vote. A lot of them are women so they wouldn't be totally opposed to feminism, though a lot of those were stay at home mums (either through choice or not) so probably wouldn't see it as a 100% good thing, or would buy into the 'I don't hate men and burn bras' definition of it; it's something that comes up in the 'good old days' rants you get from some of the men (along with gay rights stuff - let's not forget that gay marriage was one of the biggest motors of UKIP support in 2012 along with the budget). I don't think it's so much a deal-breaker as something which goes along with all the other things which they see as a symbol of metropolitan liberalism - hence why I think representatives could be the obvious low-hanging fruit as a symbol of change - but I think there's an element to it there, but that immigration is a first-order issue. I also worry that as there's very little we can do on immigration without pulling out of the EU/declaring an end to all non-EU immigration, LGBT/female/BAME-related things would be something an avowedly social conservative economically left candidate elected to reach out to that vote would go for.

 

I think the other big difference we probably have with Spain and Scotland is the prevalence of media bias and focus on blaming immigrants and highlighting cases to illustrate 'what's wrong with the country'. I doubt it's as prevalent in Spain and England was always a more natural scapegoat than immigrants for any ills in Scotland, especially with the use of oil money in the 80s for tax cuts which primarily went to the south east. And in France I don't think it's the case that left-wing parties have won those people at all, unless we're defining Front National as left-wing. Melenchon did fairly well, but given the long-standing multipolarity of French politics, I imagine if the UK were equivalent and you split the 40% UK Labour vote in 2012 ideologically into similar strands if we went for a multiparty system you'd get roughly the same result of 11% for the avowedly radical left candidate and 28% for the mainstream left candidate.

 

I don't really agree with that at all -- it was one of the main reasons for Tory activists defecting to UKIP, but as has been well established at this point they're just not representative of UKIP voters generally.

 

I actually agree with you that I would not be happy at all if Labour started being "socially conservative", not least because they'd be so utterly unconvincing at it (this new talk of them talking about "Englishness" would be laughed at by everyone.....I worry that a lot of Labour people seem to think all working-class people are 1960s stereotypes), but there's no alternative to Labour reaching out to those voters one way or another. There just isn't a big enough market for a party which makes social liberalism their main raison d'etre (which, again, is different to having those policies but as a lower priority). The poll Suedehead references is proof of that, 34% of UKIP voters say their preference is for a Labour government (whereas just 6% of Tory voters say that), while 70% of Kippers say they're less likely to vote Tory because of the cuts. There is nowhere else to go for Labour to get votes.

Latest polls have shown Labour have got no "bounce" from their conference. No surprise that "Tory policies with half as much competence" is not proving a winning formula.

 

But more interesting is that YouGov gives Ed Miliband a lead over David Cameron on welfare (26% to 21%). Which is somewhat at odds with the media's claims that everyone loves the Tories' "kick a scrounger" policies, and that Labour apparently need to show they can be "tough" on bullying the most vulnerable people in the country.

Edited September 27, 201410 yr by Danny

The Tories have lost another MP (to UKIP) and another minister (for being an idiot) in the last few hours but I suspect their friends in the press will find some excuse for not reporting that.

The sorts of people who normally provide bounces would probably say 'I wasn't too impressed with that Ed Miliband' or 'didn't he forget half his speech?' or 'I can't remember them saying anything', given the NHS funding and minimum wage policies haven't cut through at all despite being hugely popular when people are asked what they think of them.

Did you really think "increase the minimum wage to a slightly less pitiful level" or "increase NHS spending by even less than the Tories" were going to inspire people?

It isn't increasing it by less? That's £2.5bn in real terms over and above current increases - it was chosen as the amount required at the least to stop, for example, A&E staffing levels from being a technical emergency as they are currently.

 

And yes Danny. Believe it or not, some people out there are capable of realising that raising the minimum wage to the living wage overnight wouldn't just be an 'Oh it's ALL FINE nothing to worry about at all' situation and would cause a lot of problems. I'd rather have someone in work on the minimum wage than out of work because of a living wage - and I'd have thought that a principle you'd have backed too, given I'd presume you would prefer all people on average being better off to fewer people better off with those left behind distinctly worse off?

 

A rise of £1.50 in five years is the biggest rise in the minimum wage ever. Full stop. Acting like it isn't going to make people better off just because it isn't as much of a rise as it could be is utter crap, considering how much nine months ago you were waiting baited to start gushing if George Osborne put it up by a pound. I somehow doubt your line in the wake of that would've been 'OH but it's a pitiful rise and could be so much better' - it would've been 'WHY HASN'T LABOUR ALREADY ANNOUNCED THIS.'

 

And therein lies the problem with any political party playing to the fringes and to political purity. Nothing is ever enough. Just look at the Tories with the UKIP fringe - any concessions are immediately banked, zero gratitude, before seconds later becoming 'but of course it ISN'T ENOUGH...'. The political fringe purist is never happy with anything other than their position. Meanwhile with every concession, the bulk of ordinary people who consider themselves moderate are eyeing the door.

 

Are they the policies I'd have chosen for cut-through as the last conference before a general election? No. It doesn't mean they aren't good policies though.

It isn't increasing it by less? That's £2.5bn in real terms over and above current increases - it was chosen as the amount required at the least to stop, for example, A&E staffing levels from being a technical emergency as they are currently.

 

And yes Danny. Believe it or not, some people out there are capable of realising that raising the minimum wage to the living wage overnight wouldn't just be an 'Oh it's ALL FINE nothing to worry about at all' situation and would cause a lot of problems. I'd rather have someone in work on the minimum wage than out of work because of a living wage - and I'd have thought that a principle you'd have backed too, given I'd presume you would prefer all people on average being better off to fewer people better off with those left behind distinctly worse off?

 

A rise of £1.50 in five years is the biggest rise in the minimum wage ever. Full stop. Acting like it isn't going to make people better off just because it isn't as much of a rise as it could be is utter crap, considering how much nine months ago you were waiting baited to start gushing if George Osborne put it up by a pound. I somehow doubt your line in the wake of that would've been 'OH but it's a pitiful rise and could be so much better' - it would've been 'WHY HASN'T LABOUR ALREADY ANNOUNCED THIS.'

 

And therein lies the problem with any political party playing to the fringes and to political purity. Nothing is ever enough. Just look at the Tories with the UKIP fringe - any concessions are immediately banked, zero gratitude, before seconds later becoming 'but of course it ISN'T ENOUGH...'. The political fringe purist is never happy with anything other than their position. Meanwhile with every concession, the bulk of ordinary people who consider themselves moderate are eyeing the door.

 

Are they the policies I'd have chosen for cut-through as the last conference before a general election? No. It doesn't mean they aren't good policies though.

 

LOL. If people wanted "moderates"/"centrism", the Lib Dems would be soaring in the polls. The Tories' poll ratings have been going up ever since they started becoming more Euro-crazy a couple of years ago anyway (since, much as I don't agree with it, they atleast look like they have a vague sense of purpose unlike most mainstream parties these days).

 

Incidentally, I'm hoping if Labour get into government, Labour backbench MPs will have learnt from the current Tories and will actually hold the government's feet to the fire and refuse to vote through anything which clashes with core Labour principles. To be fair, there are some decent new candidates who I hope will do that -- our new candidate for example, while not some "loony-leftie", has promised he will not be voting for any further local government cuts.

Edited September 28, 201410 yr by Danny

I didn't say that. You invariably have people who describe themselves as a bit left wing but who run a local shop and can't afford to pay all their workers the living wage, or who describe themselves as a bit right wing but who are wary of anti-immigration sentiment. Moderation =/= centrism, for much the same reason as social democracy =/= communism.

 

In any case, the Lib Dems aren't the SOLE HOLDERS of centrism and moderation, much as they'd love you to think they are. It doesn't help when the party claiming to be the candlebearer is utterly discredited.

 

And that is utter confusion of correlation and causation there with the Tories. They've inched up slightly - as all governing parties do the closer it gets to election. It's still worth remembering that we're talking the difference between consistently polling 30% and consistently polling 32%, in the space of two years. And that's almost certainly down to the economy improving. Yes, a lot of people still think it's recession - that two percent is likely those who were supporting the Tories anyway but are now feeling the growth again.

On the subject of the minimum wage, the actual rise itself is actually the bit I'm least pleased about. A gradual rise over the course of the next parliament is sensible but if we're planning for 2020 I still think it could have been higher. Surely half the point of announcing it so far in advance is that it gives businesses time to work out how much more it's going to cost them. I'm glad we've finally had the sense to tie it to the median though - ideally I'd have liked it to be at 70% rather than 60, so going up by 3% above inflation per year.

I didn't say that. You invariably have people who describe themselves as a bit left wing but who run a local shop and can't afford to pay all their workers the living wage, or who describe themselves as a bit right wing but who are wary of anti-immigration sentiment. Moderation =/= centrism, for much the same reason as social democracy =/= communism.

 

In any case, the Lib Dems aren't the SOLE HOLDERS of centrism and moderation, much as they'd love you to think they are. It doesn't help when the party claiming to be the candlebearer is utterly discredited.

 

And that is utter confusion of correlation and causation there with the Tories. They've inched up slightly - as all governing parties do the closer it gets to election. It's still worth remembering that we're talking the difference between consistently polling 30% and consistently polling 32%, in the space of two years. And that's almost certainly down to the economy improving. Yes, a lot of people still think it's recession - that two percent is likely those who were supporting the Tories anyway but are now feeling the growth again.

 

err, and the main two parties aren't utterly discredited either!!!? Talk about ongoing bias on these threads. Times are hard, the bounce isn't going to stick (just take a look at where investors are sticking their money), and when times get tough people look to extremes to get answers, it's happening all over, not just the UK.

 

The rise of UKIP is entirely down to voters losing trust in the 3 main parties (not just one), and they have good reason to, as collectively we are here today thanks to them. Before anyone cries "world crisis" again, then you are absolving all political parties of blame, and by definition admitting that nothing any of them do is of relevance cos it's not their fault. Poor political parties victims of nasty foreign policies. Oh yes it is, and the blame lies squarely with New Labour and Tories. The law changes that allowed greedy bankers to bankrupt us didn't just appear, and the huge bankrupting deficits of the UK and people living in the UK didn't just magically materialise, they were the result of policies by both parties. Basic economic common sense went out the window in favour of arrogant self-belief that History no longer taught lessons. The LibDems last election successes were mostly a revolt against the other two, and that hasn't solved anything, so UKIP is the next logical stage to that.

 

Damn those pesky LibDems for rising those student fees eh....it's all their fault.

 

Please get real, and less party-biased, and see recent political history for what it is. That's why nobody wants to vote for them! We're not stupid! Just admit faults, say sorry, and stop claiming to have answers to ridiculously complicated issues that will take decades to fix.