Tories set to crush Labour as Crewe lead hits 13 points
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Print
Email
Labour is heading for a crushing defeat in Thursday's parliamentary by-election in Crewe and Nantwich, according to a ComRes poll for The Independent.
The survey puts the Conservative Party on 48 per cent, Labour on 35 per cent, the Liberal Democrats on 12 per cent and other parties on 5 per cent. The projected 14 per cent swing to the Tories would easily allow David Cameron's party to overturn the 7,780 majority Labour enjoyed at the last general election.
Such a humiliating setback for Gordon Brown would revive the debate inside Labour as to whether he should lead the party into the general election. Labour MPs believe their party's portrayal of the Tory candidate Edward Timpson as a "toff" has backfired and many admit the abolition of the 10p tax rate has alienated Labour voters.
There is more bad news for Mr Brown. ComRes found that only 13 per cent of people in Crewe regard him as an asset to his party, while 60 per cent see him as a liability. Only 9 per cent of women and 16 per cent men view the Prime Minister as an asset. Labour supporters are evenly split, with 33 per cent regarding him as an asset to the party and 34 per cent a liability.
In contrast, 82 per cent of those polled in Crewe believe Mr Cameron is an asset to his party. More Labour supporters (37 per cent) see him as an asset than think he is a liability (28 per cent). So more Labour supporters view Mr Cameron as an asset to the Tories than believe Mr Brown is an asset to Labour.
People have not yet formed a clear view about Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader. By a two-to- one margin (22 per cent to 11 per cent) they believe he is an asset rather than a liability to his party, but 33 per cent say he is "neither" and 34 per cent say they do not know. Less than half of Liberal Democrat supporters (45 per cent) think he is an asset, 7 per cent a liability.
Sixty-two per cent said they were "absolutely certain to vote" on Thursday, higher than the 60 per cent turnout in Crewe at the 2005 election. But only 22 per cent of 18- to 24 year-olds are certain to vote. Some 80 per cent of Tory supporters are certain to vote, compared to 71 per cent of those intending to vote Labour and 67 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters.
The ComRes findings suggest the Tories have extended their lead in Crewe. Nine days ago, an ICM survey put the Tories four points ahead. On Sunday, another ICM poll suggested the lead had doubled.
Although by-elections are seen as one-off events, if the ComRes share of the vote figures were repeated at a general election, the Tories would win an overall majority of 112.
Stephen Ladyman, a former Labour minister, said the party's attack on Mr Timpson been "a little crude" and the party's campaigning should become "a lot sharper" before the general election.
ComRes telephoned 1,001 adults in Crewe and Nantwich on 15-18 May, 2008. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables available at www.comres.co.uk
Comments
36 Comments
if the Tories win in crewe, i hope they keep their promises, like council tax, tax,jobs,crime,transport, Gordon Brown never kept his promise. Road tax and petrol prices could of been reviewed under Brown. But his Greed and the Chancellor have got the better of him and his party. I hope the party falls apart.
Posted by Carl | 22.05.08, 09:56 GMT
I went to help the Conservatives in Crewe and Nantwich last Sunday. As someone who has undeniable 'working class' credentials, it became apparent to me that the people in the north west are as fed up with this Government as we are in the so-called affluent south. Believe me, it is no longer true of many people around where i live. They have been taxed to the hilt, the cost of living is going through the roof, and to trying and run a car now............
I well remember the fall out from the last Labour Government in 1979. What a disastrous mess that was. Yes, the Conservatives made a mess of the economy in the middle 1990s, for which they paid the price: but they have learnt from that. Labour never learn. The next Conservative Government, which i hope will not be too long in coming, will learn from their past mistakes and serve this country well.
Posted by Colin Barker | 21.05.08, 13:51 GMT
Is Gordon the actual problem - possibly but not the only problem for me!.
Of much greater concern are the Hooray Henriettes he is surrounded by - Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears to name but few.
A female mafia of the most patronising, nannyish kind all singing from the same prescribed songsheet - what woman (or man) can actually relate to them, none that I know (and I'm a female, lifelong till now Labour voter from Crewe) ?
I used to think Hewitt was bad but this lot really are the pits - the Stepford wives of Parliament - Primarolo speaks as though constantly adressing either the brain damaged or a class of 5 year olds, Harman and others the same.
Add to it a bunch of boys who look young enough for short trousers and what have a you got. A labour Government who are inept, out of touch, don't relate, all speaking the same unthruths in the hope that if they say it all often enough, like the childrens story we'll all see the naked emperor clothes!
I'm ashamed to have voted for New Labour, they've wrecked the country - too many handouts to undeserving, money wasted everywhere, the fabric of society ruined, crime rules ok and we are all over taxed and controlled from birth to death.
Labour isn't labour anymore - even Tamsin is part of the rich dynasty and a hypocrite in the attack on Timpson (who's family
is one of the most charitable and decent around with values Gordon and go would do well to support not deride).
People are sick of being treated as morons, taxed to death and working for nothing. There is no motivation to aspire and work, overtaxed we see those taxes squandered with no improvement and further tax taken.
Will the last one out of the country please switch off the light.
.
Posted by neptel | 21.05.08, 12:51 GMT
Pete Rose,
I agree entirely with your last comment. Personally, I think that all politicians of all parties are self-serving pond life and I wouldn't trust them an inch.
My point is that Labour are supposed to be the party of the people; the working man. Instead they have increased direct taxation such as fuel duty which is crippling people on average or lower incomes whilst the rich and very rich barely bat an eyelid. Rates of income tax, especially at the higher end have remained largely untouched, apart from the 10p rate of course!
I expect to get a raw deal under the Tories but not under Labour.
I am loath to vote Tory but lets face it, where is there any credible opposition. The Lib Dems certainly aren't, and even if they were, what does the recent news about their leaders expenses claims (£147,000pa) say about them?
What we really need is for the army to fly itself back from our illegal war in Afganistan and park it's tanks on Westminster's lawn. Ah, if only........
Posted by Tony Ford | 21.05.08, 09:57 GMT
Tony Ford, the point I was trying to make is there isn't much difference between them. They are both comprised of careerists and powermongers who happily discard political beliefs and opinions at the drop of a hat if they think it will get them into power. Both have manifestos that are there purely to get them elected and then quietly withdrawn when in government. All are talentless fools who are there to do the bidding for the super-rich and I don't trust any of them.
Posted by Pete Rose | 20.05.08, 23:35 GMT
Its totally infuriating to read the diatribes being posted concerning David Cameron by die-hard.....and to quite frank deluded labour die hards. Cameron's is a new brand of liberal, compassionate conservatism which is right for the 21st century....hence why it is resonating with the electorate nationwide. You can hark back to the Thatcher years all you want. The structural adjustments she made although difficult at the time and causing some austerity were necessary for ensuring that Britain could compete for international capital in a new neo-liberal world order. What would you have had her do after the failed state labour had left her? The prosperity of the 1990's was due to the changes she had the guts to make. But i digress...are you zealous labour die hards so blindly partisan that you woul have this country suffer further under this shambles of an executive than give a promising and talented man like Cameron with a united party behind him a chance?
Posted by Will C | 20.05.08, 23:06 GMT
I agree that it has not been a bad ten years with Labour but I'm not sure how much of that is their making. I voted Labour right up until 2005 and was in there fighting the Thatcherite policies at university - but I cannot stand by them any longer. They take every opportunity to put in another tax rise we cannot see, they swear in a leader who was never tested or voted for (and is so not up to the job) and their current malaise is entirely their own doing - I believe more Mr Brown than Mr Blair as he had the purse strings and the possessive, toys out of the pram temper all these years.
Maybe we become more selfish as we get older maybe we just get wiser and more cynical. But, like the converts to Labour in 1997, I am after a change. We have to take chances in life - and if we don't kick ass now, we could be in serious trouble by 2015...
Posted by Sandy | 20.05.08, 21:57 GMT
Posted by Pete Rose | 20.05.08, 15:58 GMT
Pete Rose, most of what you say may be true. However, the Tories did not try to screw everyone in to the ground with the huge levels of taxation we have now. Labour has stabbed its working class support in the back and will pay for it.
Up to and including 1997, I always voted Labour but I have never voted for them since. Every time I fill my car with petrol and stump up my 70p in the pound tax, I remember why.
They are scum.
Posted by Tony Ford | 20.05.08, 21:36 GMT
It's not been a bad ten years with Labour you know. Trouble is we believe what we read and have decided that Mr. Cameron is the man to take us forward to a brighter future. Why ? Well it's all down to the fact he does well at PMQs, and that's all we need apparently to want him to run the country, now that's just silly. Me, I remember the times prior to Gordon and Tone and that's why I will still vote Labour . Before you decide, check back on how things were before NuLabour arrived, and ask yourselves if things were so good under the Tories why the heck did we vote them out of office. Simple really, things were not good under the Tories, you'd forgotten that hadn't you ? Well anyway that's why we dumped them, we didn't like them anymore. Now it looks likely you are about to dump Gordon and all because it's been a bit rough for the last few months. That's all it took for you to decide good old Dave was the man for you, a few rough months, you'll be sorry just you wait and see.
Posted by mike | 20.05.08, 19:57 GMT
"The short memories of the voters in Crewe will end in tears if the Tories get elected"
Why?? What are the Tories going to do? Tax the poor to give to the better off? abolish NHS dentistry? make us pay more for power because we buy it by card? etc etc etc.
Exactly - there isn't any difference between them. At least the Tories are honestly partisan unlike the Labour lot who pretend they are the salvation of the working class (but don't mind stabbing them in the back when it suits).
I couldn't give a stuff about global warming as I'm more interested in surviving. If global warming is such a problem lets ration the right to pollute and I can sell my rights to someone who wants to buy them. Don't price me out by increasing my car tax on my 5 year old car just because Labour's middle class supporters think it is a good idea. It's a middle class hobby and I can't afford to participate.
Labour is due for a very long reality check and it's very long overdue.
Posted by Ted | 20.05.08, 19:45 GMT
36 Comments