UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Brown government even more unpopular than Major's

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Labour has failed to dent the Conservatives’ opinion poll lead as David Cameron’s party improves its ratings on the economy, according to The Independent’s latest “poll of polls”.

Gordon Brown’s government is even more unpopular than John Major’s administration before it slumped to an inevitable defeat at the 1997 election. The grim findings may embolden Labour backbenchers who are plotting another attempt to force the Prime Minister to stand down before the general election. One critic said today: “We can’t go on sleepwalking to defeat. Something has got to give.”

Last year, Labour got a five-point boost from the autumn party conference season but the latest study shows there was no similar benefit from this year’s conferences. Ministers had hoped to close the gap last month but Labour’s failure leaves them pinning their hopes for a revival on the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report, which will spell out the Government’s spending priorities.

The latest weighted average of the polls puts the Tories on 42 per cent, Labour on 28 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 18 per cent. These figures would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of 90 if repeated at a general election. Although Labour is three points up on the previous month, the Tories are also up three, so Labour has made no inroads into its 14-point lead.

Labour is less popular than the Major government at the same stage of the electoral cycle. It averaged 30 per cent in surveys taken between the 1996 Tory conference and the end of October that year.

John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who compiled the “poll of polls,” said: “Labour must be increasingly concerned that too many voters have fallen out of love with the party for too long for it to have much hope of making a significant recovery between now and a general election that has to be held within eight months.”

This year’s conferences did not appear to have any real impact on the relative standing of the three main parties, said Professor Curtice. “The battle for economic competence is still clearly being won by the Conservatives,” he added. “Indeed, if anything they are becoming increasingly successful in persuading the public they are the better economic managers. It seems as though the Tories’ focus at their conference on how they would handle the debt crisis and the economy did them no harm at all. It is difficult to see how Labour will succeed in narrowing the Tory lead unless it can reverse this perception.”

The crumb of comfort for Labour is that the Tories have not regained the popularity ratings they enjoyed last year. Between May and September last year, Mr Cameron’s party averaged 44 per cent in the “poll of polls.”

Professor Curtice said: “David Cameron must still be concerned that he has still not ‘sealed the deal’ with sufficient voters so that Labour could not at least claw its way back to hung-parliament territory.”

One explanation for that could be damage suffered by the controversy over MPs’ expenses. However, support for minor parties appears to have declined and has almost returned to its level before the European Parliament elections in June, when UKIP and the British National Party gained ground.

But there is little sign of a boost for the BNP following the appearance of its leader Nick Griffin on BBC TV’s “Question Time” programme. Two surveys conducted since do not suggest it had a positive impact, although a third did suggest the party had gone up from two to four per cent.

Brown allies dismissed speculation of another coup attempt, pointing out that the Prime Minister saw off two previous rebellions last summer and this June. But his critics plan to field a “Brown must go” candidate against Tony Lloyd, a loyalist who comes up for re-election as chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party later this month.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]saxontimes wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:39 pm (UTC)
This is madness after what Labour have done that 28% are still voting for them. What do they have to do to get fired?
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:18 pm (UTC)
No idea but I don't think anybody is voting for the "Good Socialists" either. I have the impression that whatever kind of Socialist people are, it is definitely, "Not this year's fashion even in London Metropolitan (I'm Mandy Fly mee...), Circles either".

So food parcels for the chattering classes of Islington is a "must", we cannot allow them and their children to shuffle off this mortal coil, undernourished compared to their usual healthy life is obvious even if in the past, it was at the expense of the proletariat.

Post the next election, at public expense we should hold a "Bye Suckers" Party for outgoing socialist MPs that includes Limbo Dancing on hot coals, of course there would have to be a Vet in attendance to humanely put down any who were past redemption of even basic survival.
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:25 pm (UTC)


No shoes either !
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:31 pm (UTC)
Harsh but fair I suspect.
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:45 pm (UTC)


And a very low bar...
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:32 pm (UTC)
Socialists?

What socialists?
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]johnnynorfolk wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:30 pm (UTC)
The 28 % are those that rely on Labour to keep paying their benifits, Or work for the state.
How we have supported all these hangers on for so long is part of the reason we are in such a mess.
Re: Who keeps voting for the vile socialists?
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:09 am (UTC)


Yawn...
Socialists?
[info]sameth99200 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:20 am (UTC)
I imagine the majority of these are Scottish voters afraid of the growing influence of the SNP and their calls for Scottish Independence, as will be demonstrated in the Glasgow North East by-election.

However only an idiot would call New Labour socialists.
NO BALLS
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:51 pm (UTC)


Labour ARE sleepwalking to annihilation next election. The un-elected PM Brown, and the other un-elected Mandelson - you know , the geezer who talked the putative" rebels " last time out of rebellion, will pull the Labour Party, and the UK with it, down about their ears, just as Hitler did back in 45, but as we all know, he was seriously mad.

What is this grotesque regime's excuse. I'm not a party hack...
Glorious Gordo "ICH BIN EIN GEFAHR ZU U.K."
[info]caurnie1 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:31 pm (UTC)
To-night in Berlin Glorious Gordo came out in his true colours with his "Ich bin ein (Whatever keeps me in power)" speech. His words tonight in Berlin must have gone a long way to making sure that no one in their right senses would ever elect him and his henchmen to govern UK. Perhaps Gordo will make a promise to the other European leaders that he will hold a referendum on the euro. As his Government falls apart, it is obvious to all( with the exception of the 28% turnips) that this Government must resign and resign soon.
Re: Glorious Gordo "ICH BIN EIN GEFAHR ZU U.K."
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:44 pm (UTC)


Re resign : Fat chance, this lot will have to carried out of the Bunker screaming like stuck pigs !
Conlabour
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC)
New labour are only a sick graft onto the socialist tree. The weakened tree is still quite strong, it just needs the tory graft removing. 5 years in recouperation Then back to true socialist strength and values. I cant wait :)
Re: Conlabour
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:33 pm (UTC)
Dream on ...
Re: Conlabour
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:44 pm (UTC)


You may have to wait quite a while, there will not be any Labour Party; after the next election, and I hope I'm wrong there, the last thing the UK needs now - like a stag needs a hatrack - is a Tory landslide. That makes me sad, and mad, since I once believed in Labour, in the days of Dennis Healy, Roy Jenkins, Nye Bevin and Michael Foot. There is no way I could possibly support these self important political pygmies who are so totally out of touch with reality, the reality of the streets. They have, without any apparent shame, traduced not just Labour, but the entire UK. The penalty for treason used to be a short stop in the Tower; if you were lucky, and many weren't, and then some pretty rough treatment was meted out, in front of vast crowds, having a day out; on high, but not too high, rude scaffolds. Not a pretty sight. Labour wiill merely spend years, and years in the wilderness.
As far as Socialism goes, the only example of it I can recall, and one that seemed to work, was the early Co-OP, up in Rochdale, late 19th century. Of recent times, the term has been bandied about, but what real Socialism have we seen actually seen ?

The only way Labour can minimise the damage to the Party AND, the UK dammit, is to crowbar Brown and his familiar, out of the Bunker. Like Johnson, Brown has been over promoted, is un-elected as PM, and is just not up to the job, which is poignant, since he has wanted the job all his life.

I'm sorry kingofmumu, it's how it looks to me, best wishes
Re: Conlabour
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
I totally agree with you. The way the COOP was run is how a future state owned bank should operate. When I refer to Socialists, I mean real Socialists. This Labour government is not true Socialist. Thank you for your reply
Re: Conlabour
[info]saxontimes wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:06 pm (UTC)
Are you serious? By any standards socialism is a failure in any form because it always seeks the determine our future based on their prejudice and diktat. This is anti-democratic and must by virtue of this deny basic freedoms should they conflict with their social engineering projects. If you look at it Socialism and National Socialism have much more in common than the left wingers would like to admit to. If we look at the Labour front bench most of them have been far left wing and ex communists that is why their huge social engineering project the multculturalisation and colonisation has been driven through by labelling all that objected as racist and therefore killed all debate. They have also grown a huge public sector all part of the socialist centalisation steamroller and they are in the process of getting children to inform on each other and their parents. No this government is a typical socialist government that is manipulative, devious and evil. Even sugar coating socialism as the people's party fighting for working class freedom is a blatant lie, all they have ever wanted is stupid masses to vote for them to carry through their evil unchallenged. Well I have news for you the stupid white masses are not so stupid they have woken up to the biggest CON trick ever perpetrated on the British people to colonise us with immigrants 80% of whom vote for the socialist, why because we give them all the benefits. CON Labour is exactly correct!

Re: Conlabour
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:20 pm (UTC)


is who serious ?
Re: Conlabour
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC)
This labour government is not Socialist. Capitolism is a failure for the many it is only good for the few. Castro of Cuba has got it right! Thank you for your comments.
Re: Conlabour
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)
This labour government is not Socialist. Capitolism is a failure for the many it is only good for the few. Castro of Cuba has got it right! "Viva la Revolution in the United States" Thank you for your comments.
Conlabour zugzwang42
[info]daismallcoal wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:18 pm (UTC)
THANK YOU zugzwang - you have expressed my strong sentiments perfectly.
These arrogant, deluded people have taken a good, honest party and movement ,- (rather like a good old aeroplane that millions treasured and loved), and are in in process of slow-motion crashing it into the ground through blindness, stupidity and recklessness.

Once wrecked will it ever be rebuilt ?. G.Brown and his mob are neither vile nor socialists, just utterly out of their depth but unwilling to relinquish the controls to anyone else....

Out-of-control immigration , ID cards, a police force demoralised and out of control (G20), yes Iraq, state interference in too many aspects of our daily lives, failure ever to explain and promote Europe, the list is endless.
They will deliver us to the Tories !
Re: Conlabour zugzwang42
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:54 pm (UTC)


Thanks very much for that. Liked your analogies. Not too good myself on those myself . The transformation of Labour, and in so short a space of time and defies description and for WHAT, it is surreal.
Re: Conlabour zugzwang42
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:21 am (UTC)


That's it "neither vile nor socialists...just utterly out of their depth but unwilling to relinquish the controls to anyone else "

A mutiny would be in order here to wrest the controls of the Labour Party hi-jackers
No change in Labour ... and no change, except the faces, from the Tories ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:29 pm (UTC)
There probably will be some sort of half-soaked attempt to remove Mr Brown some time around the turn of the year, because the turkeys can see the advent of Christmas.

But I suspect it'll be half-soaked because, under the verbal flummery, Labour's exhausted, dis-spirited and out of ideas. And because, in any case, it's just so hard, constitutionally, to displace a Labour leader. And because who have they got as a credible alternative, with some ghost of a chance of convincing voters - or at least the rump of voters who, after the shenanigans of the earlier part of this year, still think it's even worth making the effort of voting? (Watch the by-election in Glasgow later this week to get an idea of potential turn-out, particularly in working class constituencies. My guess is that Labour will still win in the pathetic Martin's old seat, but on a derisory poll - proof, surely, that abstention just leads to more of the same.)

And, above all, because, in their heart of hearts, they know it's too bloody late.

So the odds are that a knackered and utterly discredited Brown'll still be heading his knackered and utterly discredited party next spring. I wonder just how much of a wipe-out it'll be.

My gloomy guess, for what it's worth, is that next year we'll get a Cameron government with a small but sufficient overall majority, on a poll that drops below - perhaps significantly below - 60%.

Which will be neither better nor worse than Labour getting back in, because, once you discount the Tories' ambition for power and the gimlet eyed impetus and desire for power that they get from their lead in the polls, there's little enough to choose between either main party.

So we'll get more of the same. More of the same on Afghanistan. More, basically, of the same in responding to the recession. More of the same in dealing with the banks. More of the same in dealing - or not dealing! - with the problems of immigration. The only difference, in time, will be a tighter rein on public spending, as - assuming we don't get a cataclysmic "W"-shaped recession, in which event anything could happen - they move from pouring money in to trying to cut the nation's coat according to the new austerity cloth.

And here there may be one bit of difference from New Labour. The faded fag-end memory of socialism at least would prompt Labour to try to insulate those least equipped to cope with austerity Britain from the worst that will happen to them. I doubt that the Tories will put much serious effort into that, any more than they did when Britain's old industrial base finally decayed and disintegrateded in the 80s, and whole communities collapsed into unemployment, apathy, depression and serial generational benefit dependency - not to mention drugs, crime, depression and suicide.

What the Tories will do is wave the union flag and offer us the wearisome old Euro-bogey as a distraction - a bait which, to judge from the polls and a pretty large number of posters in here, a fair number of Brits seem prepared to swallow. And, without of course for a moment suggesting that immigration is anything but "a good thing", they'll further distract us by telling us that they're keeping it under firm control - even when, of course, they aren't, any more than they did the last time they were in.

Which isn't to say that the EU doesn't need reforming and that immigration doesn't present problems. Just that both are secondary issues in comparison with the economy, public debt, job losses, the growing gap between rich and poor in Britain (for surely in Tory Britain bankers and commodity traders - and politicians! - will get richer while a whole load of ordianry folk get poorer!), and, in the longer term, climate change, food and energy shortages, &c.

But then waving the flag's always been a sure way to distract and fire up Brits. People never fail to fall for it, even now the Empire's been dead for fifty years, and Britain's significant great power status for rather longer. No doubt they'll do it again.

There'll be no "new dawn" with Cameron - probably not much of a new anything, as far as what really matters is concerned. Only the faces, and the accents, will be different.
Nude Labour a Duds' Army
[info]gorazdi wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:44 pm (UTC)
Mr Brown goes off to town on the 8.21
He comes home each evening and he's ready wih his dumb
FAQ so who do you think you are kidding Mr Griffin
It could be worse with Mandelson

With apologies to Clive Dunn and all those who faught for justice
Re: No change in Labour ... and no change, except the faces, from the Tories ...
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:08 pm (UTC)


Don't underestimate the poll, any Party that does that could come unstuck. In case you havn't noticed, there is a lot of pent up, seething anger over this regime's antics . If the turnout on this one is not really, really high, I might be stuck with reading your elongated rants forever John
Re: No change in Labour ... and no change, except the faces, from the Tories ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
If I turn out to be wrong, as a penance, I'll promise to post nothing longer then a Twitter-length on these pages for the succeeding three years!

The seething anger's obvious, and I share it. It's how people will decide to express it that worries me.

Mind you, there's a guy on a local website in my home area who posts under the name "vmeldrew". His posts match the name. Probably mine on here do too. As I'm also at that certain time of life, I probably should put a "health warning" on them and admit it. So take this as the health warning and the admission!
12 Years to ruin Britain
[info]johnnynorfolk wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:27 pm (UTC)
It has happened to every Labour government, only this time much worse. At last the people have woken up to what Labour are like. They only spend they never create any wealth for Britain.

But hey we had to work to pay off the war debt. The younger people will have to work to pay off Labours debt.
Re: 12 Years to ruin Britain
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:48 pm (UTC)


WhAT, has happened to every Labour government, hubris ?
Re: 12 Years to ruin Britain
[info]chouenlai wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
@zugswang42
They (Labour, new, old , or middle aged) have bankrupted the country every time they have formed a govenment. Now we are hiding behind the New Labour are Tories nonsense, how much more evidence is required to realise socialism is a busted flush at whatever level you go for.

Still, keep dreaming girls, your prince will come. David Milliband.
Brown Government
[info]rayatcov wrote:
Friday, 13 November 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC)
Let's be honest about this. Labour/Conservative/Liberal are one and the same.
Please tell me how working Britain could be any worse off with the BNP or at a pinch UKIP than this lot.

In modern European history, there have been two categories of regime which sought to hound dissidents solely on the grounds of their political affiliation.
The communist regimes of Eastern Europe formed one group, and most notoriously, Nazi Germany and her Fascist allies formed the other. In Communist Eastern Europe, the tactic of depriving political dissidents of their livelihood and forcing them into menial occupations developed into a finely honed instrument of state policy.

Now, in 21st Century Britain, Fascist-style political harassment is again back in vogue: the modish preoccupation of government ministers, Trade Union barons, Establishment journalists and Cabinet Office bureaucrats alike.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date