New ComRes poll of Londoners
ComRes have a new poll of Londoners out. Asked who they’d prefer between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, Boris leads Ken by 44% to 35%. Unlike the rather odd question last month, this one didn’t have Oona King in, gave people the option of saying other, and came straight after the initial Westminster voting intention, so should give a better picture of where the two candidates are at the start of the race.
Interestingly ComRes also asked about Voting Intention in London, which stands at CON 36%(+1), LAB 39%(+2), LDEM 16%(-6) – changes are from the actual 2010 election result. These figures are not directly comparable to majoral preferences, since these are weighted and filtered by likelihood to vote and exclude don’t knows, but nevertheless Boris does seem to be outperforming his party while Ken lags behinds Labour. Looking at the cross breaks, 19% of Labour voters would prefer Boris as mayor, compared to only 9% of Conservative voters who would prefer Ken.
Epochery
“But this is not about an economic necessity but party ideology”
I know I shouldn’t -but what the hell!
Which ideology is that exactly?
Paul – one of the regular contributors to this site, H.Hemmelig, is a Conservative supporter who preferred Livingstone to Johnson last time. A friend of mine too is Conservative-leaning but likes Livingstone.
Just to remind people this is a tax on the richest members of society and most of those are employed in the City.Nothing here for the Labour Party.Do you really want to subsidize merchant bankers?
Garry K,
Yes that is probably a more accurate analysis than mine. You are very dialectic- it is a good quality.
As far as I can see ED M has already made his position quite clear regarding universal benefits.As far as opposition is concerned the right wing press are doing it for him!Iwould suggest that he is working on his shadow cabinet and hopefully giving these decisions all the time and thought the Conservatives obviously do not apply to theirs.As for Osbourne somebody commented today that like Ian McCloud he is too clever by far! and that was not a compliment.
Let’s wait a few more polls to see what is hapening
“.Do you really want to subsidize merchant bankers?”
Yes they do Wolf.
They are really very worried about their wives & children.
I think it’s an ideological thing
I’m not going to go through either thread and weed, but a lot of this and the previous poll have really not been in the spirit of non-partisanship. An awful lot have descended into
“Party I don’t like has done something awful, they are idiots, this will be catastrophically awful for them”
with consequential responses of
“Party I do like hasn’t done something awful and it won’t be awful”
This is (a) not really in the spirit of non-partisanship and (b) really not enlightening. There are certain names who we can guarantee will be of the opinion that X will be disasterous for party Y, almost regardless of what X is.
Please try harder.
So Child Benefit row.
With a full tummy and a clear head, it’s suddenly blindingly obvious that GO hoped this would draw Labour into a debate on universality, with Labour rabidly in favour, seen to be defending the well off. The Tories would be seen to be making fair cuts with Labour married to stale ideology.
Labour haven’t answered.
The Tories have now announced an unpopular cut, 3 years before they had to with the CSR just round the corner.
What’s more, if they back down on CB for the “squeezed middle” then those affected by caps on housing benefit, other benefits, disability benefits etc will have a good reason to be very aggrieved indeed.
GO went for another shock em and trip em strike, but Labour didn’t bite.
Sue Marsh
“So Child Benefit row.
With a full tummy ”
MMmm. Might you have phrased that better?
As we are now discussing polls in a non-partisan way, when is the next one due
@Eoin – ” WWC will greatly support an assault on the the top 10%s benefits.”
People like a victimless crime, the unfairness of the one/two breadwinners disparity will offend regardless.
The C2DEs know they will be first in line to bear the disproportionate brunt of Osborne’s strategy anyway.
The argument for universality is a strong one… least priveleged have plenty to fear from the breaking of that consensus.
Garry – in about 26 minutes
I’m sorry Anthony if my posts have been OTT. I do enjoy banter, but I see the error of my ways now
Billy Bob,
It’s nice to know I am not the only universalist.
Contrary to Eoin i do not think this was such a wise move from Osborne and I will explain why. Please do note that these are simply my opinions and are in no way intended to offend anyone but simply to further the discussion.
Firstly it is noted that GO tried to out manouvre Lab. The only reason I can come up with for announcing the benefit cut first and then waiting basically a 24hr cycle to get out the tax benefit was in hope that Lab would come out with blazing guns to oppose the cut only to be placed into a position of then either opposing the family tax relief or in the case that that too would have been supported would be to paint them as fiscally irresponsible. The only other real option would have been to use the latter to drown the bad news of the former, however this would have worked best if the proposals come out together, as you would have given favourable pundits to have a positive to push forward, spin etc.
However the plans themselves are slightly ill thought. First of all the benefit cut effects an important constituency needed for electoral victories. Secondly, what about single parents falling in the 40% tax bracket? They will lose the benefit but note gain from the cut. Similarly same sex couples that have adopted a child (or at least on of them has). etc etc etc. Damage will undoubtedly be done.
Moreover, this raises another important specter. Why take a benefit away on the basis of austerity only to give back a tax cut? If the cut is needed due to budgetary reasons then surely no compensation should be contemplated simply because the country does not afford it. Thus an easy narrative of ideologically led cuts will only be enforced – “Cons want to reduce the state – they are cutting social welfare because they oppose it on principle, but will cut taxes as they oppose them on principle to. See its not about the deficit”. (Well something on those lines). Consequently, in full knowledge that tax cuts help the richest more and benefits help the poorest more, the claim of unfair cuts and that the Tories are the party of the rich will be easier to make.
The way this was done also shows potentially that the coalition is somewhat uncertain. The cut followed by a compensatory measure smacks too much of the 10p tax debacle of Brown. I would think that after Thatcher and the “lady is not for turning line” does not permit present conservative leaders not to show nerves of steel. Tough leaders are now expected by the Conservative core supporters. David Daves’ attack today on the cut will also not make matters better. (I doubt its the start of the rebellion as some commentators have claimed, but surely it makes the conditions for a future possible one more conducive).
Finally the reaction to this first proper cut is setting the tone for what is to come. As I suspected whilst polls show that the majority is in favour of austerity measures and cuts, once a face and a name is put to such cuts that opinion soon changes. I doubt the polls will show a clear opposition to this cut (a question I am sure will be made), but the resistance seen to this first basic step clearly shows that the spending review coming up in 2 weeks time circa will make life for the coalition very difficult for sometime to say the least. Quite indicative is also the silence of the LibDems on the cut itself. It will be interesting to see how they react to and defend the cut (I would presume that their reactions will be markedly different as they answer to a fairly different segment of the electorate). Having said all the above…. will this spell disaster for the coalition and the conservatives in particular? Surely not over this one cut and its simply too early to say. However they are sure to run into rough seas, its now a question of how sterdy is their ship.
We surely do live in interesting times. My one advice to Lab and E Mili would be to sit this conference out. Not to attack outright any proposal or discussion made and allow civil society and the electorate at large to create the narrative. The traps which GO et al will undoubtedly try to setup through this conference are plenty and a rush into the battleflied now would be simply foolhardy.
The lessons from Sun Tsu at this moment are definitely most pertinent.
Not sure you will get to read this as I have no doubt that Anthony has surely put me under moderation due to my outburst some days ago, but I hope he will allow me a slip once in a while and not put me under permanent gag
Are there any polls taken on Married Tax Allowance?
How popular is it?
I seem to remember it wasn’t terribly popular at all and became a bit of an embarrassment during the campaign. Surely now Dave is forced to talk about that too, he’s even more in a stew?
SUE
Here’s an extract from the New Statesman last April;
“Some good news for the Conservatives comes in a Harris opinion poll for the Daily Mail. Asking a one-off question, the pollster found that 65 per cent of respondents believe the next government should support marriage by raising tax allowances for married couples, with 35 per cent disagreeing.
But as Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report notes, “It’s one of those questions that depend a lot on how it’s asked.”
Julian – yep “Should the government support marriage” will always get a yes. Specific proposals are probably going to be a lot trickier
Xiby,
Your post would make a lot of sense were it not for one thing… voters back an end to universality. Even Labour ones. Thus, the red leadership are
1. silent = irrelevant
2. supportive = share in the spoils
3. oppose = fall back in the polls/appear intransigent/defend the rich
I am dreading the next two to three polls.. blues could hit 43%
Anthony – I’ve got a vague little memory of it only being 30something% somewhere during the campaign. Or did I dream it?
@ Sue Marsh
Ed M is doing the best thing (accident or design?); he is letting his cabinet hopefuls do the talking.
YC refusing to froth at the mouth over Child Benefit? IMO, she’s simply waiting to find out: How big a target are they going to give her?
First they propose removing an entitlement enjoyed by many of their ‘own’ voters; then
It will be removed in a way that penalises families with one high earner & one stay at home parent; then
When asked why, Osborne responds that properly means testing CB is complicated & expensive; then
Cameron proposes to give some of back via a tax break that will discriminate against lone parents; then
adding insult to injury, he doesn’t say one stay at home parent – he says stay at home ‘mother’!
I’m with YC, why say anything when you can stand back & watch the Tories digging a great big hole for themselves?
It fell into into disrepute over a long time, I seem to remember, and wasn’t it put to sleep mercifully without barely a tear shed?
I’m not sure of it’s purpose. I fail to grasp how throwing a few quid at a married couple ‘supports marriage’. Is it supposed to encourage people to get married or keep them together? Is it a cash bonus for being married?
Like I posted earlier, I think supporting Children is the key, regardless of their parents status. Why should a child be financially disadvantaged because he/she is from parents who are not married?
No, lets leave it be, in the dustbin of history.
YouGov; CON 43%, LAB 39%, LD 11%
Kudos to Eoin (see his post at 9.57)
Surely with 43 at the upper end of Con polling already, they would hope to be able to poll higher during their conference?
It being the Married Couple Allowance
Well Eoin according to YouGov’s poll tonite they already have. Figures are:
Cons 43, Lab 39, LibDem 11
Government approval at +3
However I think you missed my point. But only time will tell if I am right in the end. As you I sure hope that I am right and you are wrong
Sue – I can’t remember one, but as the New Statesman was apparently quoting me saying , it depends how you ask it.
Eoin – show off! I bet you got an early copy of the Sun or something didn’t you?
** lol, can I say I posted my comment before I saw tonight’s poll?
New thread
To be honest, at this stage of the game, following an election defeat, I expected Labour to be in a worse position.
I am perfectly happy and looking forward with confidence
Anthony Wells,
If Lab talk now about this as it is during a conference where they can easily be drowned out and out spinned would be simply suicide. I would simply sit it out, pure and simple.
There is alot to learn from the saying “give a man enough rope to hang himself”. Or “Those who fly to high will only fall harder”.
Otherwise Sun Tsu – Keep your enemies guess, surprise is your best weapon. Let your opponent think less of you and your capablities etc etc etc, the list can be quite long.
Its their conference hence its their show.
Just a thought on the London polls. It’s far too early to make any assumptions about the mayoral poll at this stage, other than both contenders are clearly still in the race.
As London Mayor is a single constutency election, high turnouts and big electorates matter more than who happens to be stronger in Central or Greater London. If the last Mayoral election is any guide, the higher turnout in the more affluent suburbs may win it for Boris, even if he is slammed in the Centre (where turnouts are substantially lower).
In Bexley and Bromley (where I live), the turnout was the highest, and Boris’s lead over Ken the greatest, and this was a key factor in his win.
Ken will never get close to winning in area like Bexley and Bromley. He is always going to lose and lose big. Even if the cuts invoke riots in the smoke. What he must do is enthuse the inner city area votes in a big way in order to offset the suburban hoardes. He must also persuade inner city Lib Dems to give him their second preference vote.
Now if I was to show off- I might re post this post from 48 hours ago (oops did I just do that)
_________________________________________
Amber,
In reply to you- and not for general debate- I think he will float above it throughout parl. The minor coalition partner will take the negativity. And GO readily volunteers himself as public enemy no.1. DC will in all likeliehood remain an asset to blue. The question is how long will it take for LF, BJ, DD et al. to turn on him? At a guess, not until a second term is secured. As for a bounce- we could see a 43% blue this week.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
the ken & boris rerun should be fun but they won’t tell us so much about the relative strength of the parties. when it comes to choosing a mayor, londoners want someone who will fight for london no matter what, that’s why ken was so successful and why tories could vote for him. i think the same applies to boris, i could understand red londoners voting for him. they also both have those large persona’s, eccentric at times but 100% real.
if the libdems are going to be competitive in this race they will have to put up someone really special, lembit would fit the bill if he was from london, but as an outsider i think not. other than him there aren’t so many choices
viewing the mayoralty as a springboard to high office or party leader is unrealistic. the qualities needed are so different. i think that ken is probably the only viable labour candidate in london but if he was leading the party or even in the shadow cabinet the reds would get trounced in a GE. and much the same applies to boris, if i was a londoner i could vote for either of them as mayor but if they standing for the PM job i would run a mile
Of course everyone’s missing the point about the married tax allowance (or whatever it will be called). It’s all so that when Ed Miliband gets married, the Mail can say he’s doing it for the money.