The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer is out tonight and has topline figures of CON 28%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 17%(+1). Voting intentions are pretty much identical to a fortnight ago – the UKIP score looks startling but Opinium have had them this high for a month (they tend to prodce one of the higher scores for the party, which Opinium themselves put down to the fact they don’t use any past vote weighting.)

105 Responses to “Opinium/Observer – CON 28, LAB 38, LD 8, UKIP 17”

1 2 3
  1. ALEC

    @”would have thought we could both agree in principle that paying to have people working is better than paying to have them idle,”

    I’m not entirely sure that we could.

    That is far too broad brush to say whether I agree or not.

    I would need to know, amongst other things :-

    What “job”?-doing what for who & why?
    How sustainable-real if you like?
    Who pays & for how long?
    How does this impact the workforce recruited competitively?

    @”I also think we could possibly agree on the contributory principle in benefits.”

    I did think that I would agree with this when I firsty heard Frank Field talking about how far we have moved from that principle to state guarantee of minimum income.

    THere is an incredible analysis in ST today about the effects of Tax Credits. Of course they are nothing to do with Tax at all-they are income supplements. THeir redistributive effect is amazing.
    The CAB study involves six single parents all working in the same NHS Hospital . Each were given a notional two children of pre-school age and the same rent & childcare costs.Before tax their salaries range from £14k for a records clerk, to £30k for a ward sister.
    After applying the PAYE & Tax Credit regime they ALL end up with around £37.8k

    THe ward sister takes home £46 more than the lowest paid-despite years of study & exams.

    This is an excercise in redistribution of income -not a welfare system.

    ……….so FF’s remarks resonate-I see what he means very starkly in this example.

    ………all the same , I am concerned that the contributory principle, applied too harshly, could penalise groups or individuals whose lack of “contribution” was not voluntary.

    Basically, our WElfare Benefits / Tax CRedit system is a god awful mess. IT is creating huge in work benefit for some whilst creating huge disincentive for others.

    Don’t know the answer-hope IDS does.

  2. ALEC

    Have replied-it’s been moderated-no idea why .

  3. Re: UKIP. I think that the Tories (and others), who have turned UKIP just don’t believe a word that politicians say. So, moving the issues to the UKIP agenda makes UKIP even more credible and does nothing for the Tory vote because those voters don’t trust them anyhow. I think that is why the UKIP intention vote is going up.
    At a general election to keep Labour out? Maybe, but the hatred is pretty visceral. I suppose that is why they are generally weighted down.

  4. COLIN

    Do you have a link to that article about redistribution via tax credits? I’d like to see how the numbers are crunched – thanks.


    The only “detail” I could find on the proposed Labour work program is in a Liam Byrne comment piece on

    “Labour’s view is that work experience can help get young people into work – but – and this is the crucial ‘but’, we strongly feel that young people should be given a real choice of a real job with a real wage. That means a tax on bankers’ bonuses to create a fund which we would spend offering over 100,000 young people a six month job, with training and job search paid at the national minimum wage”.

    So only applies to about a tenth of the estimated 1 million unemployed young people, only a temporary position (what happens after the six months?), at minimum (not living) wage, and dependent on bankers earning taxable bonuses – nothing too revolutionary then.

    Also seems to have nothing to say about in work benefits and tax credits, JSA accounting for only about 3% of welfare costs.

1 2 3