Labour down to a record low of 23 percent in one poll, Tories lead by 16 in another

David Boycott

Twelve months of yet more damage being inflicted on the British economy and yet more attacks on our civil liberties.

Ken

"Twelve fun-filled months of this pantomime", I like your humour Mr Nelson, but the true cost of all this fun (as you several times have pointed out) is decades of misery and austerity for the next generation, your kids included.

These evil people, starting with the madman masquerading as PM should be charged.

In the army it would be for dereliction of duty.

Where are all these human rights lawyers now that they finally have a worthy cause?

GIN

Frazer, Labour actually dropped down to 23% once last year when YouGob did a poll for The Sun just after the local elections;

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Richie

Who on earth are the 23% who would vote for these people ????

paracelsus

If this government wasn't systematically destroying this country, it might actually be funny. However, I fear the wreckage, come next May, may be so horrific it will take decades to recover.

We are truly in for years of austerity and pain. Fun times ahead!

TGF UKIP

Just think of how much further the Tories would and should be ahead if they had had a credible economic policy line and a credible economic spokesman over the past three years.

Incredibly, with twelve months still to go Labour still have everything to play for, so little conviction is there about the Cameron Tories.

David Bouvier

Fraser - do you have the fieldwork date on this poll? It has been a long week in politics this week.

SimonJ

I guess 23% is immigrants and the self preservation at all costs public sector

JohnAnt

He'll have to resign. There'll be an ambush in the H of C even before the June elections, 21st June at the latest.

Tiberius

A pantomome indeed, with many of we observers spending the week trying to rebuild our company's profit margins, and our weekends redecorating our houses because we can't fiddle our expenses and get someone else to do it.

But England thrashed the West Indies, and there is the prospect that the British Labour Party could be overtaken by the LibDems as one of our country's top two political parties.

Life's rich tapestry and all that...

I presume you're sworn to secrecy about the ST's revelations tomorrow, Fraser ;)

Gloria Temple

I'm not sure what 'authority' Brown is supposed to have lost. Perhaps Cameron can find it as he doesn't seem to have any of his own? The only authority in a democracy is the electorate and their kinsfolk. Is this what is meant my Brown losing it? Then again, he like Cameron, has never had it, so I fail to see how they could lose it. Now having said that, if you had an expense system that allowed you to top up your lifestyle, would you decline to use it? If honesty be authority, then lets all hope the electorate will vote honestly for the future, and not as a declaration of the evil they see in themselves.

Thomas Cussans

We've seen nothing yet. I strongly suspect Labour will struggle to poll as much as 20% in next month's local elections.

The Great McNutter is on the point of consigning his party to electoral obliviation.

There are only two rational responses to this. One, good, good, good and good. Two, given that this was a certainty at least this time last year, why did no one within his own party move against him?

Because they are cowards? Because they are cretins? Because they are relentless place-seekers too dim to see that that their time had passed?

In fact, setting aside obvious point scoring, it is abundantly clear a political crisis is on us. It can only in fact, must be – be resolved by a general election.

And it is no less obvious that this is the one thing that McCretin, his moral compass spinning ever more frantically, is determined not to allow.

It is in every sense an appalling indictment of Brown and his government that this obvious lancing of the boil – let the people speak - should not under any circumstances be allowed

On the other hand, some minor comfort can be taken from the certain fact that once eventually ignominiously expelled from office, Gordon Brown will unquestionably go down as this country's most catastrophically inept prime minister.

That said, we may all be living in cardboard boxes by then.

Verity

Fraser - There is still no appetite for the Tories under Cameron. It's an anti-Labour 43% - not a pro-Tory.

Marian C

Fraser, do you really think that this pathetic excuse for a government can realistically last another 12 months? Personally I don’t think so; the Labour party will be forced into making GB resign, possibly claiming medical / family reasons for his sudden departure. Whatever they decide to do, as a party, they are well and truly finished.

Laura T

Only Alan Johnson can save them now!

Dame Hermione Grope-Worthy (Miss)

Destroyer Brown will hang on until the last possible moment.

Hoon.

Mark (not from Edinburgh)

Good bye and good riddance. At this rate the wonderboy James Purnell will lose his seat. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

Mark (not an aspiring candidate)

Thank you, Verity, dependable as ever!

GIN

Verity posted:

"Fraser - There is still no appetite for the Tories under Cameron. It's an anti-Labour 43% - not a pro-Tory."

How do you work that out? And in any case, so what?

TrevorsDen

Shut up UKIP - this is a devastating poll.

Polls in 1997 were overstating labours lead and they have all changed their methodologies. this is a very bad poll for Labour.

Nick

I think the main problem that Labour has in someone challenging for the leadership is that there is no suitable candidate who feels comfortable talking about economics or banking/financial matters.

The state of the economy is going to be the most significant fundamental topic for the next election. I know that many Coffeehousers don't rate Osborne, or Cameron, highly but at least these two are economically literate. Similarly the Lib Dems have Vince Cable whose thirty years as a professional economist give him gravitas in this field.

Unfortunately for Labour its possible front-runer, Alan Johnson, is completely out of his depth in regard to economic matters. And I suspect he realises this which is why he is reluctant to challenge Brown.

Ed Balls obviously knows his way around the Financial Times but is far too unpopular with everyone to mount a credible challenge.

AndyLeeds

Jonah Brown is truly a man against whom even God himself has borne witness.

Rory Channing

"...if you had an expense system that allowed you to top up your lifestyle, would you decline to use it?" -- Gloria Temple

Damned right, I chose not to do so, Gloria. (And I had opportunities galore).

The tone of your message
suggests that perhaps you are in favour of enriching oneself in such circumstances? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

arabesque

Lots of delusion here. Tories have not yet convinced many of obvious leadership that say blair did prior to winning. Change of leadership at labour as economy approves could easily stop tories winning majority.

Alex

Say it ten million times Verity; you may even convince yourself it is true

Verity

Alex - you seem to be a little slow. See, someone who says something 10m times, or even 10,000 times, or even 1,000 times says it because they are convinced of its truth. That's the whole point!

Now, don't you feel like a little silly billy troll?

Nick, who writes: "Unfortunately for Labour its possible front-runer, Alan Johnson, is completely out of his depth in regard to economic matters" - and Tony Blair wasn't?

Nicholas

"Lots of delusion here."

Not as much delusion as in the government and amongst Labour supporters!

Tories don't need to convince - Brown and his gang are doing that for them - in spades.

And bad news on the economy ain't over yet.

Tiberius

The facts, TGF, oh the facts.

Before Cameron became leader, the Tories polling had been shocking for years.

The alternative, David Davis, gave a Conference speech in 2005 that would have cured insomnia.

Since Cameron became leader, the Tories have extended their lead over Labour, to the point where they will win a healthy majority.

Everything else is supposition.

jeff

Think yourselves lucky that you only have a year! We in Australia have a Prime Minister with John Major's charisma and Gordon Brown's policies. The political cycle ( 3 year terms) means that this dynamic spinning new labour clone will get at least 2 terms within which to wreck the place. I wouldn't bother having the dream of a life down under as by the time you get here you won't be able to afford the tax. You will probably win the ashes as well!

Fergus Pickering

The Labour Party has never, NEVER, forced a leader to resign. They didn't force Foot. They didn't force Kinnock. It was Brown, and not the party, who forced Blair to go. If Brown led the Tories he wouldn't be here now. Just tyell me WHO is going to force him to go? Jack bloody Straw? Don't make me laugh. And Alan Johnson for Prime Minister? Postman Pat? Can he actually read and write?

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, I watched David Davis' Conference speech (did you?) and it was anything but an insomnia cure. As has since been pointed out, though, Dave and his team had their media pals well coralled into reporting it as such.

How typically Heirite of you though to set such store by a speech.

As I keep pointing out to you though, Cameron & Co actually convince so very few people which is why their poll lead is so soft and so much anti-Labour.

Indeed they were polling ahead of where they are now last Summer, only for Gordon to have a good Conference and their lead immediately collapsed back to 5 -7%.

And indeed, their lead was also back again to a measly 7% just a few months ago, well within the limits for an election campaign to turn around.

Remember Tiberius, a week is a long time in politics as this past and these past few weeks have shown and there is almost certainly anpther twelve months to go so Labour certainly do still have everything to fight for.

On the other hand, had Davis been Leader he would now be in the immensely strong position of being proved exactly right and be able to say to Gordon "told you so" by having remorselessly criticized Gordon over the past three years for excessive spending and borrowing.

Something Marr, Humphrys, Paxman and co will point out that Dave not only didn't do but actually promised to spend and borrow even more.

You and his other groupies really are welcome to him Tiberius.

Nick

Verity wrote:

Nick, who writes: "Unfortunately for Labour its possible front-runer, Alan Johnson, is completely out of his depth in regard to economic matters" - and Tony Blair wasn't?

Tony Blair was equally as clueless about economic matters in 1997 but the difference in 1997 was that the economy wasn't in chaos and so not a significant political issue. It didn't matter that Blair wasn't au fait with economic and financial concepts. He was also in a two-man team with Gordon Brown who, whatever his faults, was comfortable in talking about economics.

Obnoxio The Clown

So, effectively a quarter of Briton's would STILL vote for Labour after all that has happened.

And we wonder why the country is a mess.

john

Re: Who on earth are the 23% who would vote for these people ????

-----
Jocks.

Tiberius

I did watch Davis' speech, TGF, and was surprised how lacking in passion it was. He misread his own party's mood in the leadership contest, and this casts doubt on whether he could have gauged the country's mood.

I do agree on the potential for shifts on a weekly basis. It is because Labour can still command polling of 25 - 30% when they have ruined the country that the Tories have to be led by someone who can do the politics. With a Davis or a Redwood at the helm, Labour's polling would improve.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, "someone who can do the politics" eh?

Being out of sync with public opinion on excessive spending for the past eighteen months as well as with his green obsessions and having as his principal economic spokesman for an economic election someone so despised and tuned out by the electorate. This is doing the politics is it?

I realize just how difficult it is for you, Tiberius, but you really must face up to the uncomfortable truth that the Tory lead is largely an anti Labour vote and that is why it is such a soft lead that so easily evaporates whenever there is a sign of a Labour revival.

If Dave really could "do the politics" given how appalling in every way this government is, the Tories would by now be over the hill and so far away that Labour would be beyond redemption

Politics goes and has always gone in cycles, Blair and Brown hit and rode the tax and spend cycle. Being the daft bugger he is Dave stayed with it even though it has been obvious for at least the last couple of years that the cycle was over.

DD on the other hand would have been on the right cycle of cutting spending, borrowing and taxes from the start which is why he would now have not just a huge lead but an absolutely solid one as well.

And DD would never have been so stupid as to let Osborne get anywhere near his front line.

TGF UKIP

And Oh yes, Tiberius, I forgot to ask you: is ringfencing handouts to African kleptocrats and subsidies for major competing economies, also "doing the politics."?

If so, perhaps you could explain how this chimes in with the prevailing political mood - or even makes any sense.

Tiberius

It may ease your mind, TGF, to know that I have informed the Party, via the monthly surveys I submit, that I disagree with the policy on ring-fencing the International Aid budget.

I think we have exchanged views on a similar theme before - I do not possess a Dave cheerleading suit nor even "Dave for PM" pom-poms.