Labour's economically inactive support
James Forsyth 3:03pm
I’m fairly sceptical of polls at the moment, politics has been so unusual these past few weeks I’m not sure how worthwhile a snapshot is right now. But the breakdown of today’s numbers in The Times —Labour 30, Tories 42, and Lib Dems 19—does strike me as fascinating.
Peter Riddell points out the differences between public and private sector voting intentions. Amongst private sector workers the Tories are at 45, Labour 29 and the Lib Dems 17. But with public sector workers it is Tories 38, Labour 26 and lib Dem 17.
It is not that surprising that support for the party of the centre-right is higher among private sector workers. But what is interesting is the Labour numbers which show that the party receives its highest level of support among the economically inactive (its overall figure, 30 percent, is higher than its numbers among either private or public sector workers) and that the party receives more support among private sector workers than public sector ones.



Previous






Roger Thornhill
March 10th, 2009 3:22pm Report this commentWhy do you consider it "interesting" that Labour's client state offers it the most support?
The real problem occurs when the 51% realise they can take from the 49%.
As for the public sector, there seems to be more don't knows. Might be because they hate or are now embarrassed by Labour but cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone else.
Hannah
March 10th, 2009 3:26pm Report this commentJames, I once worked in the public sector (housing) and I can tell you that all the little old ladies I worked with were Daily Mail readers and Conservative voters. Odd, I thought.
It was only once I saw the level of waste that I understood why. These people saw - on a day-to-day basis - money being flushed down the toilet and they'd seen it all their working lives. They were sick of it.
I went from being a Guardian reader to a Mail reader within six months.
Paul Dacre understates the case of how much waste is in the public sector. I will never, ever forget the waste I saw.
If anyone doubts me, go and work (meeting benefit recipients - not filing in the back office) in a dole office or housing office.
I have never done a job before or since where my blood just boiled at what I saw. And if your Grandma reads the Mail, she probably worked in a dole office.
Oldcragrat
March 10th, 2009 3:42pm Report this commentThat's the nail hit Roger. How does the saying go? Why should the client state bite the hand tht feeds it so well at the expense of the ever decreasing number of private sector taxpayers?
kardinal birkutzki
March 10th, 2009 3:49pm Report this commentIs there any chance that some of you "Spectator" writers could work out what a "comma splice" is and then start writing correctly punctuated Englsh?
inamicus
March 10th, 2009 4:10pm Report this commentYour figures are wrong for the public sector - should be LD 23 not LD 17
luke
March 10th, 2009 4:11pm Report this commentThe public sector workers will return to labour over the next year as the prospects of a tough tory austerity programme become more real.
David Ossitt
March 10th, 2009 4:14pm Report this commentRoger Thornhill.
Might be because they hate or are now embarrassed by Labour but cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone else.
Oh but they will; election night will be the best night on the televison for years, I for one can't wait.
Mike, Brighton
March 10th, 2009 4:26pm Report this commentI'm simply staggered that 30% of those asked (and weighted) would vote Labour. It simply proves the old adage that you never get poor underestimating the foolishness of people.
The Watcher
March 10th, 2009 5:27pm Report this commentVery true Hannah!
I work in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the amount of money wasted is disgraceful! Most of it has been blown on useless IT systems which are obsolete when introduced because they're so behind schedule or going into building up the little empires of middle managers which largely consist of agency and temporary staff who sit around all day on Facebook and Bebo!
Robert
March 10th, 2009 5:43pm Report this commentHannah,
"I went from being a Guardian reader to a Mail reader within six months"
I very well remember being an 18 year old, college-boy-son-of-a bricklayer-rabid-Left supporter, who became a rabid Right supporter within 6 months of actually starting work in the real world!
I still am, 45 years later, and will be voting BNP next time around (if there is one)
Ecko
March 10th, 2009 6:39pm Report this commentThere's a difference between voting for Right parties and the BNP. Look up LPUK, now LPUK has plans to tackle the behemoth that is the State!
Fergus Pickering
March 10th, 2009 7:00pm Report this commentWhen you go to work youget a pay slip and on the payslip is a large sum of money that used to be known as 'stoppages'. Stoppages is the greatest recruiting sergeant for the Conservative party known. Just one look at it often suffices. 'Stoppages for what?' To pay for the idle and indigent, brother (or sister). 'What? What?' My daughters are both Tories (though they may not know it yet), And Cameron is the man to get them in. They like Cameron. Verity and others take note. You can't change the world if you don't get elected!
David Ossitt
March 10th, 2009 7:18pm Report this commentRobert.
I very well remember being an 18 year old, college-boy-son-of-a bricklayer-rabid-Left supporter.
Nothing to be ashamed of we all were in our childhood, then we grew up.
David Ossitt
March 10th, 2009 7:23pm Report this commentEcko.
If the BNP gain support at the next election then this could persuade pinko Dave that he should possition the Tory's much more to the right where they ought to be.
Peter
March 10th, 2009 7:51pm Report this commentThose that do not work, and have not worked and do not participate in any community service should not be able to vote. Those who are employed by the state should only get half a vote. Those in the Armed Forces should get two votes. If you don't contribute financially or practically to society then you should not be able to vote yourself more benefits.
Dominic Allkins
March 10th, 2009 10:55pm Report this commentI think Peter's thinking is getting somewhere close to where a lot of us are. It's not so much a case of the the economically inactive not biting the hands that feed them but actively voting to be fed more.
http://alibertariansperspective.blogspot.com/
Steve Tierney
March 11th, 2009 2:45am Report this commentThe BNP, despite popular thinking, are more a party of the left than the right.
Lefties like to try and paint them "far right" as a brush to build on the presumption that "to the right" means "towards racism".
It doesn't.
If you actually look at many of the BNPs policies they can just as easily be called a left-wing party. Those of you who insist you are right wing, then say you plan to vote for the BNP, should probably take some time to review what you are voting for.
Do you really think that outright Protectionism is a good thing for the Economy? If you do, you should take the time to read some economic history. It's protectionism that's largely blamed for the depth of the Great Depression. It's a BNP policy though.
Given the 'Troubles' that we had with Northern Ireland, do we really want the prospect of a war with Southern Ireland while we try and take the land back? Mad as it sounds, this is current BNP Policy. Check the website.
Might I suggest, if you are right wing and really wont vote for the Tories (who are my own first choice) that UKIP are a much better fit than the BNP.
With the added benefit that UKIP aren't evil.
Chris
March 11th, 2009 9:50am Report this commentAnd I thought the spectator was a place for intelligent debate..snigger. The fact that people are opening stating that they will vote for the BNP says it all. It is like Guardian readers saying they will vote for hard core Socialist parties.
p.s. how would half a vote work? would that mean one vote every two elections -just think of the admin that would require and oh more public sector staff...
By all means deny criminals the right to vote and those under 18 but you can not deny the vote to people who's economic life style you disagree with. Where does it all end -only the rich and well off voting -thus taking back democracy back 100 odd years. I know Peter lets deny non working mothers the vote as they are economically unactive as well.
Paul B
March 11th, 2009 10:26am Report this commentSteve Tierney- well said Sir, wise words indeed!
Andrew Cadman
March 11th, 2009 10:36am Report this commentThe public / private sector split may have something to do with gender. The public sector employs a significantly higher percentage of women, who tend to be less politically tribal / dont know / floating voter types. That might be why you have a higher percentage of Lib Dem votes and a greater proportion of don't knows.
On a seperate point is it still true after the boundary changes that the Tories still need a lead of 8% to get a simply majority in Parliament. If so dont count your chickens about a Tory majority government.
RH
March 11th, 2009 12:35pm Report this commentIf even now Labour can still muster 30% of the vote you can never right them off. In the current climate that is an amazing figure and is perhaps indicative of the failure of education policy over the last 11 years (or the true success of spin). I'm amazed that Brown can count on the support of 10% let alone 30%, add in the democratic inbalance between the parties due to the boundaries and you'll realise why everyone who really wants shot of this terrible Government should vote Tory. It's the only sure way for change to come and recovery begin.
Mr. Rude
March 11th, 2009 11:38pm Report this commentDavid Ossit - How dare you sir !
Ihave never been a rabid left winger in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Ossitt
March 12th, 2009 9:43am Report this commentMr Rude there are two t's in Ossitt.
Never!
Never in your youth thought utopia was just over the horizon.
Back to top