In the overall headline numbers in The Times' poll there is no change with the Conservatives maintaining a 16% advantage. One of the most interesting findings is that "barely a half (51%) of those who voted Labour in 2005 say they would do so in a general election now". That figure contrasts with 83% for the Conservatives.
Populus also asked about some of the measures touted by Labour to boost the flagging UK economy:
- 58% support a windfall tax on energy companies but just 22% think it will make a significant difference to their economic situation.
- 68% back help for lower income families to pay higher fuel bills but only a quarter of voters think such help will be significant.
- 70% back a temporary suspension of stamp duty on house purchases but just 30% think it'll make a big difference.
- 83% back public spending measures that would increase the affordability of house purchase. 33% believe such measures would be significant in their effect.
This reminds me of the episode in the West Wing when Josh goes apeshit over a poll that suggests something like 60% of voters think to much money is spent on overseas aid, but only 45% want it reduced. "That's 15% of people that think they pay too much, but don't want to reduce the amount they pay!"
Posted by: David | September 01, 2008 at 21:44
If Labour can only count on 51% of their vote from 2005. Doing a rough calculation (with lots of caveats) but that would suggest that their total vote could possibly drop to below 5 million. That would be the lowest overall turnout for Labour since 1924.
Of course it's very unlikely to happen.
Posted by: jsfl | September 01, 2008 at 22:16
If we are to oppose a windfall tax,we'll have to do so with far more skill than Alan Duncan showed last week. Windfall taxes whilst superficially attractive will result in significant long term damage to our energy companies which will hurt the economy and eventually lead to even higher energy prices.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | September 01, 2008 at 22:27
Should we be prepared for Labour to get a slight bounce in the opinion polls for their economic support measures? (although we'll likely to have to pay for them dearly in the longer term)
Posted by: Philip | September 01, 2008 at 22:51
If labour go on a mad socialist drive - we are going to look very out of touch in opposing it....
Posted by: Politico | September 01, 2008 at 23:01
"Windfall taxes whilst superficially attractive will result in significant long term damage to our energy companies which will hurt the economy and eventually lead to even higher energy prices."
I fail to see how they are even superficially attractive.
Surely it will cause short term damage to the energy companies too and instantly cause higher prices and so hurt the economy very quickly, simply to grab a few extra quid.
No doubt the plan they are going to come up with is to steal from the apparently rich to give to the seemingly poor (minus huge administration charges) and it may cause a small bounce in the polls until people realise they are either classed as rich so are going to be much worse off, or are part of "the poorest" who they think would vote labour anyway so not worth giving anything to.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 01, 2008 at 23:24
Lib Dems are on course to take Glenroths. A 5,000 to 8,000 majority is inevitable, with stupendous momentum.
Posted by: Gloy Plopwell | September 01, 2008 at 23:41
The best the Liberal Democrats can hope for in Glenrothes is that they might hold their deposit.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2008 at 00:14
Surely the fact that windfall taxes are even being contemplated shows that the energy market is deeply uncompetitive and ill regulated. Surely in a competitive market, increases in raw material costs would lead to profits falling and in fact some suppliers going bust? Or the entry of new players - please Mr Branson, start selling me gas.
Not sure what can be done about this, as people seem unwilling to switch supplier. One measure might be to give you free choice of provider whyen you move house, rather than force you to go with the previous householder's supplier.
Posted by: Phil C | September 02, 2008 at 08:56
83% back public spending measures that would increase the affordability of house purchase. 33% believe such measures would be significant in their effect.
The economic ignorance of the general population, eh?
Posted by: torydeb | September 02, 2008 at 09:11
You fail to see how windfall taxes are even superficially attractive Norm? Blimey!!! I suggest you talk to some people who have been hit by their bills going up by nearly a third when they are struggling to stay afloat financially and they read that Energy companies are making huge profits. You didn't work at CCHQ between 1997-2005 did you?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | September 02, 2008 at 09:16
"I suggest you talk to some people who have been hit by their bills going up by nearly a third when they are struggling to stay afloat financially "
Exactly - why would they want higher bills?
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 02, 2008 at 09:28
Based on their record over 11 years, there is absolutely no way now that I would consider voting for Gordon Brown - or Labour - whatever they do or say but I suspect there are many people like me who still feel that David Cameron has to deserve my vote.
That means that he not only has to produce policies in the still "policy-lite" areas (the economy, the EU, transport, defence etc) but he also has to tell us who is going to be in charge of the key departments when the conservatives assume government.
Posted by: David Belchamber | September 02, 2008 at 09:51
The windfall tax has to be combined with ofgem price controls to ensure that the energy companies do not pass the prices on to the poorest customers. This would also deal with many of the other issues mentioned.
Energy companies usually process natural resources owned by us all. They deserve to make some profit for their capital investment and delivery, but this is simply too much. They have massively increased prices, far more than required, and have benefited enormously from the EU carbon trading scheme.
The stamp duty idea is very expensive. The housing market will find its natural level. In the mean time, if the government wants to help people, it should kick the banks up the backside to get them to pass on cuts in interest rates.
Posted by: passing leftie | September 02, 2008 at 12:19
Gloy Plopwell, you keep saying the same thing. The novelty of your joke is wearing off.
Posted by: Votedave | September 02, 2008 at 17:51
"he not only has to produce policies in the still "policy-lite" areas (the economy, the EU, transport, defence etc) but he also has to tell us who is going to be in charge of the key departments when the conservatives assume government."
That will happen, when the time comes. I'm glad to be a member of a party that takes the time necessary to make important decisions - and doesn't rush like Labour does.
Posted by: Votedave | September 02, 2008 at 20:50
A 'windfall tax' on energy companies is too late, a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. This Government should have rigorously capped prices to prevent such massive price rises in the first place.(This has been the case in France).
Scrapping stamp duty on property sales under £175K is a sop to public opinion and will prove a massive waste of tax payers money.
The facts are this Government promotes sophism, has imploded, is bereft of ideas, lacks leadership and is dangerously close to bankrupting this country.
Posted by: B.Garvie | September 04, 2008 at 06:20