Conservatives have their first lead with YouGov in two and a half years. 35% to Labour's 34%.

I'm not surprised. The important test will be whether it lasts or whether it's just a standard conference bounce - considering YouGov had a seven point Labour lead yesterday.

Nah, I think this is going to be pretty much permanent. What reason is there for the average person to vote Labour? They (since they don't pay attention to the ins and outs of politics) are just going to see a party which will give them the same policies as the current government (actually, much as it pains me to say it, Cameron's speech was perhaps more left-wing than Ed Miliband's miserable wet fish of a speech) but with even less competence -- why would people vote for that? Labour have blown it.

Edited October 3, 201410 yr by Danny

You're assuming that people vote entirely on policy and political positioning. Don't you argue yourself that people don't think in terms of left wing and right wing? We have about 27% of the population that voted Labour in 2010 and is sticking with Labour so far, and another 6-8% that voted Lib Dem last time and wouldn't vote Tory if they were the last party on earth. I'm not convinced the bounce will necessarily stick.

 

And LOL at the idea that Cameron's speech was more left wing than Ed's. Had Ed come out with the same speech you'd have mercilessly criticised him for going hyper right wing. That's the problem with how you view politics Danny - one left wing sop in a Tory speech and all of a sudden the Tories are being more left wing than Labour. One right wing sop in a Labour speech and suddenly Labour are more right wing than the Tories. Let's happily ignore a mansion tax, a clampdown on tax avoidance, a big increase in the minimum wage (regardless of whether you think it should've been bigger) and increased spending on the NHS, all because Cameron came out with a raise in the personal allowance and a bit of rhetoric on zero-hours contracts. Let's also ignore Cameron's pledge to end freedom of movement, the Human Rights Act, and cuts to tax credits, because this narrative needs Labour to be useless and identical to the Tories.

You're assuming that people vote entirely on policy and political positioning. Don't you argue yourself that people don't think in terms of left wing and right wing? We have about 27% of the population that voted Labour in 2010 and is sticking with Labour so far, and another 6-8% that voted Lib Dem last time and wouldn't vote Tory if they were the last party on earth. I'm not convinced the bounce will necessarily stick.

 

The "Cameron's speech was more left-wing than Miliband" was not what I think the public think, that was my personal opinion.

 

And I now think the 2010 Lib Dems are probably not going to go Labour. They might go back to the Lib Dems (they were certainly a lot more forthright than Labour in condemning the Tories' disgusting welfare cuts this week, however disingenuous they might've been), but I'm starting to think the most likely thing is they're going to go Green. You're right that most people don't pay attention to "left and right", but these Guardianista, very politically-aware former Lib Dems do if my dad's any indication -- they abandoned the Lib Dems in the first place because they signed up to austerity so why would they vote Labour who are the same?

If they're so politically aware then the entire reason they voted for the Lib Dems on a watered down Green platform in 2010 (rather than the actual Greens) was surely because they thought they could actually hold the balance of power. A lot, as Tirren said, will do anything to stop the Tories getting a majority so it's Labour or nothing.

If they're so politically aware then the entire reason they voted for the Lib Dems on a watered down Green platform in 2010 (rather than the actual Greens) was surely because they thought they could actually hold the balance of power. A lot, as Tirren said, will do anything to stop the Tories getting a majority so it's Labour or nothing.

 

If keeping the Tories out was their main concern, they wouldn't have ever voted Lib Dem in the first place. Again, I come back to why would they vote Labour if they're committed to the very policies which led them to get so furious with the Lib Dems after 2010? They want an end to Tory policies, not just a change of personnel.

 

 

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.

 

This is actually what's happened for Labour with their attempts at "economic credibility". Despite the fact their economic policy is now more right-wing than Tony Blair's ever was, they have still received NO credit whatsoever from the right-wing press (meanwhile, the Blairite idiots who were the ones who urged these disastrous policies on the leadership were moaning again over the weekend how they STILL weren't "credible" enough), and they have continually insisted they give up yet more ground on economics and give the Tories space to be ever more horrible. Labour simply were never going to convince the austerity-maniacs, yet they've also leaked votes on the left at the same time. The polls show that people already consider Labour to be closer to the "centre" than the Tories but it's done them no good whatsoever.

 

Or basically the point I'm making made much more eloquently: http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-the-labo...ggest-problems/

Edited October 6, 201410 yr by Danny

3rd YouGov poll in a row with a Tory lead.

If keeping the Tories out was their main concern, they wouldn't have ever voted Lib Dem in the first place.

Eh? Why would a voter in Eastbourne whose main priority was keeping the Tories out vote anything other than Lib Dem?

Ditto where I am. The LibDem vote was to keep out the Tories not help them get into power.

Eh? Why would a voter in Eastbourne whose main priority was keeping the Tories out vote anything other than Lib Dem?

 

Tory/LibDem marginals are exceptions obviously. But a lot of Labour commentators always assume that the "Guardianista" Lib Dems will definitely be voting Labour, no matter how unappealing Labour's policies are, simply because they want to "kick the Tories out" so much -- but if that was the case, they would've voted Labour (in seats where they were in contention) in 2010 rather than Lib Dem.

Tory/LibDem marginals are exceptions obviously. But a lot of Labour commentators always assume that the "Guardianista" Lib Dems will definitely be voting Labour, no matter how unappealing Labour's policies are, simply because they want to "kick the Tories out" so much -- but if that was the case, they would've voted Labour (in seats where they were in contention) in 2010 rather than Lib Dem.

Why? If the only possible outcomes in a seat are a Lib Dem win or a Labour win why not vote for the one you like more? Obviously those voters are more likely to vote Labour next May but it's not hard to see why they would have voted Lib Dem last time.

Why? If the only possible outcomes in a seat are a Lib Dem win or a Labour win why not vote for the one you like more? Obviously those voters are more likely to vote Labour next May but it's not hard to see why they would have voted Lib Dem last time.

This is exactly my point :P I'm saying that some of those lefty former Lib Dems might well vote Green instead of Labour, if Labour don't get their act together. Rey Carlos seemed to be saying they would vote for Labour simply as the "lesser of two evils" compared to the Conservatives, but if they all they cared about was stopping the Tories at any price regardless of how terrible Labour's policies are, then they would've been voting Labour in 2010.

Again, why? By 2010 the Lib Dems were the main opposition to the Tories in a lot of the South and so for all but diehard Labour voters it made no sense to vote for anyone but the Lib Dems if they wanted to keep the Tories out.

 

It's worth noting two things alongside the recent Tory poll leads aside from the obvious things about the data. Firstly they'll probably need to win more votes in May just to prevent Labour from winning a majority, and will need to be a few points ahead in order to end up as the largest party. Secondly, for a long time now the Labour vote projection has been far stronger in Lab/Con marginals than in national polls. The Labour vote next year could only rise a few points on 2010 and we'd still probably end up in government because the electoral geography is becoming more and more polarised. Miliband gives zero reason for anyone to vote Labour in any seat where the result is a foregone conclusion, but so far has obviously been more effective at convincing those who think their vote counts for something that we're the preferable option.

I'm sure the party will figure out how to resolve a stubborn Tory lead if this lasts. I can think of an obvious solution.

I'm sure the party will figure out how to resolve a stubborn Tory lead if this lasts. I can think of an obvious solution.

 

Isn't it too late for a leadership election? Ousting Ed would probably mean Harriet Harman would become leader by default at this point. Which....I like her more than most of the shadow cabinet prats, but it's not very clear that she'd be more popular than Ed. (Then again, Labour actually were doing better when she was temp leader in 2010 than now....)

Edited October 6, 201410 yr by Danny

I don't imagine there'd be an election if that were the solution people settled on. At least, not a contested one.

I really don't see what's wrong with Ed at all tbh! I am finding it really hard to figure out why people want to re-elect a government where I've personally had to help people who are in danger of starving to f***ing death! Nothing is getting better at all but yet people would rather keep these idiots just because their leader is a better speaker. The reason I like Ed is BECAUSE he's not a Blair or a Cameron. At least Labour have actually explained where the money from all their policies is actually coming from.

 

I am genuinely really scared now

 

EDIT: Populas has a 6 point Labour lead hmmm...

Edited October 7, 201410 yr by Grandwicky

Whatever lead the Tories are shown as having (or indeed Labour), clearly the Conservatives are not going to see a net gain of 20 seats so we are probably looking at a hung parliament in 2015.

Does anyone worry about the effect a raise in the vote for the SNP in Scotland would have for Labou continuing on from the referendum debate?