A poll conduced at the end of February by Ipsos-MORI for The Economist shows that the economy continues to be the public's most pressing concern. This is potentially a double-edged sword for Labour. The public still blame Labour, rather than the banks for the deficit. Moving beyond that will be easier said than done.
A poll conduced at the end of February by Ipsos-MORI for The Economist shows that the economy continues to be the public’s most pressing concern.
This is potentially a double-edged sword for Labour.
With the increasingly influential presence of Lynton Crosby in the Tory camp, not to mention the loss of the Eastleigh by-election, David Cameron will come under increasing pressure from Tory backbenchers to shift policy further to the Right.
Nothing new here of course.
An excellent (separate) piece for the Economist today notes that in the run up to the 2005 election, an emboldened Tory Right sought to “shift…emphasis [in the party] away from public services towards immigration, crime and, of course, Europe…”.
They largely succeeded, resulting in a calamitous electoral defeat for Tory leader Michael Howard in a winnable election.
Backbench ideologues rarely learn lessons from history, so expect Cameron to face similar demands as worried MPs sense weakness on the back of humiliations like that in Eastleigh.
Labour can, indeed, take a degree of solace from the prospect of the Tories scrabbling around to prevent their core vote indulging Nigel Farage’s protest party.
No more than a degree of solace, though.
While Ed Miliband has been wise to turn his attention to economic concerns of late in the form of (largely symbolic) policy proposals on the mansion tax and the 10p tax rate, Labour is still suffering badly when voters are asked about the economy, as a poll for YouGov this week showed.
Q a) Which party would handle Britain’s economy best?
Q b) Who would you trust more to run the economy?
| a) Which party? | b) Which team? | ||||||
| Con | Lab | Other/ Don’t know | Cameron/ Osborne | Miliband/ Balls | Not sure | ||
| % | % | % | % | % | % | ||
| Apr 2012 | 28 | 27 | 45 | 36 | 28 | 35 | |
| Jul 2012 | 27 | 26 | 47 | 34 | 31 | 35 | |
| Oct 2012 | 26 | 28 | 46 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
| Dec 2012 | 28 | 27 | 45 | 37 | 26 | 37 | |
| Feb 2013 | 27 | 29 | 44 | 35 | 29 | 37 |
As Peter Kelner phrased it:
“Almost three years after Gordon Brown left Downing Street, more people still blame Labour rather than the Conservatives for the state of the economy and the public spending cuts that Osborne has imposed. Secondly, when asked who they trust more to run the economy, more people still prefer Cameron and Osborne to Miliband and Balls.”
While Labour is right to focus on the economy – it is voters’ main concern and Osborne is the government’s biggest liability – doing so is a double-edged sword. It is potentially Labour’s strongest area of attack, but it also risks a damaging boomerang effect.
Moving beyond the fact that the public appear to still blame Labour, rather than the banks, for the deficit will be easier said than done.
In the public mind, the party is still stuck in the Gordon Brown era, and the failure to win the argument in 2009/10 that it was the banks rather than the government which was to blame for the crisis still hangs around the party’s neck like an albatros.
142 Responses to “Labour is still struggling to leave the Brown era behind”
Newsbot9
I’m not “other lefties”. I’m quite willing to use the BCS because of it’s methodology. You’re stereotyping again.
There are issues with it, but the picture it gives is still a better one than the police figures. It dates back to 1982, and it’s more important to keep constant methodology for comparison reasons than to change it for party-political reasons.
Mick
What flow? Especially after the war, there were years of real austerity. Labour even closed midweek football and the dogs because they didn’t want people slipping off in the day.
Everyone was taxed and the money just seemed to vanish under Labour. You can’t just be like Robin Hood. Even if Labour weren’t walking disasters, there wouldn’t be enough money to go around to make a difference anyway.
Newsbot9
That’s right, you keep making excuses, that even if things were different it’d still be as bad. No, that’s simply not the case. I’m no Labourite, and you’re managing to make them look good, ironically.
Mick
Follow what you like, it’s lovely having a proper conversation.
There are supplementary benefits and other things available but I do agree that it’s awful that anybody would suffer anyway. People are being helped and I wouldn’t say a 1% benefits cap, or our benefits bill going up higher than ever, would mean the Tories are exactly driving us all back to the workhouse. And though making the unemployed work at Tescos for free, well the dole, is stupid, I still know they’re doing their best.
And criminals don’t get better being told to dig council flowerbeds before they bunk off home again. Or letting themselves flout ABCs, as Labour liked. You let them know there’s no nonsense with a boot camp, reform school or something, on top of training them for something and getting ’em some work somewhere. We could try a new version of the old way today.
Mick
‘ 2. Severe and rigid economy: wartime austerity.’
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/austerity
There was austerity after the war. Rationing continued, even got worse, plus people really struggled just to buy some meagre shopping or the very odd little luxury. Taxes went up and nobody decorated. People worked, worked and worked again for very long hours and they were always tired. Recovery was really that, the kind of recovery in a hospital.