You are here: Home » Comment »

Introducing Ed’s converts

May 14, 2012 4:55 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

It’s a truism of politics that elections are won from the centre-ground. New Fabian analysis suggests however that the ‘centre’ is now further ‘left’ than it was. Our research shows that the people who will decide the next election – the voters who will make the difference between Labour polling 34% or 38% on election day – are now more left-leaning than they have been for a decade.

With Labour riding high in the polls, we looked in depth at people declaring support for Labour today who did not back the party in 2010: ‘Ed’s converts’ as we call them. Three quarters are former Liberal Democrats, with 2010 Lib Dem voters outnumbering Conservatives four-to-one. Indeed Labour is well ahead in the polls despite having won over just 6% of David Cameron’s 2010 supporters.

What really surprised us was that as a group, ‘Ed’s converts’ are actually more left wing than the typical supporter of either the Liberal Democrat or Labour parties in 2010. 77% agree that public services should not be run as businesses, compared to 67% of 2010 Labour supporters and 60% of the public. Even more notable, 40% of ‘Ed’s converts’ support higher taxes to pay for public services. This compares to 22% of the public, 35% of 2010 Labour voters and 33% of 2010 Liberal Democrats.

These results show that the former Lib Dems who have swelled Labour ranks mainly come from the left of the party, the Charles Kennedy social democrat wing. This comes as no surprise, but it is surprising that there are enough of these new left-leaning Labour supporters to give the party such a comfortable lead in the polls.

Of course these are mid-term polls, but our analysis also shows that a large proportion of ‘Ed’s converts’ are likely to stick with Labour. As many of Labour’s new supporters say they are very likely to consider Labour at the next election as is the case for Gordon Brown’s 2010 voters: 86% in the case of ‘Ed’s converts’, compared to 85% of 2010 Labour voters.

Meanwhile only 17% of the group would even consider voting Conservative and 43% Liberal Democrat, suggesting that around half Labour’s new supporters are pretty much undetachable, even if the coalition parties stage a good recovery. This ‘worst case’ level of support would still translate to Labour securing around 35% in the next election, which guarantees another hung parliament. For the Tories to lead Labour pretty much all ‘Ed’s converts’ who are still consider voting Conservative or Liberal Democrat would need to switch their allegiance back. That’s not impossible, but it should be preventable.

With the ‘uniting’ of the left behind Labour it therefore becomes possible to imagine a Labour polling close to 40% and winning a majority without a ‘new Labour’ appeal to lots of those famous swing-voters who choose between Labour and the Conservatives at each election. All Ed would need to do to win would be to keep the very modest number of former Tory supporters who have already switched to Labour.

This is potentially revolutionary for how Labour does politics because a voter with a 50:50 chance of voting Conservative or Labour tends to be on the right of centre-ground opinion (remember that 64% of voters didn’t back the Tories in 2010). An appeal to this demographic segment therefore drags political discourse to the right of mainstream public opinion. So a Labour campaign that relied less on swing-voters would permit a modest shift to the left without the prospect of electoral oblivion.

That does not mean that Labour’s work is done. Far from it. For the notional Labour vote reported in the polls actually needs to turn out on election day. Labour still has a long way to go to develop ideas and language that appeal both to lower income communities and left liberal voters, who now make up two distinct ‘core’ constituencies for the party.

Ed Miliband’s role-models now must be Obama or Hollande not Tony Blair. The critical factors for success will be leadership and economic credibility. The Labour Party does not need to trim to the centre to win, indeed it may need to do more to show it offers a distinct alternative to the coalition. But it does need to be seen as a convincing Government-in-waiting.

It is becoming received wisdom in Westminster that politics is in ‘stalemate’ with neither large party able to win voters off the other. While this is true, the Fabian analysis shows that it is because Labour has won few ex-Tory votes that its current lead is less ‘soft’ than first appears. Even without an army of former Cameron supporters, Labour stands a very good chance of winning a majority in 2015 if it successfully unites the left. Victory in 2015 is Ed Miliband’s to throw away. Labour are now the favourites, with all the pressures, pitfalls and opportunities that implies.

A version of this article also appears on the Fabian Review website launched on 11 May. It forms part of the society’s Labour’s Next Majority programme.

Related posts:

  1. Introducing the Steve Hilton Award for Progressive Gobledegook
  2. Introducing ‘The Fib List’
  3. Introducing LabourWomen
  4. Everything to play for – introducing a day of Soundings thinking on LabourList
  5. Introducing national identity day on LabourList
  • Mario Dunn

    Yeah – Blair was rubbish – could never win an election. Clearly knew noting about politics.

    ps
    you are an idiot

    • http://twitter.com/Greenleftie Michael Bater

      That was at the peak Neo- Liberalism in this country. Things are much different now. 

      Part of the Neo- Labour, I mean  New Labour mantra was that the party had to change with the times. It’s now the progress-ites, that are doing the exact opposite! 

    • Max M

      he is saying that you don’t need to push hard to the Right to win elections now because people’s attitudes are changing to the Left and the Fibdems have lots vast swathes of their leftist supporters, and are now coming to Labour.

      Blair won elections, but he did it with the Tory manifesto, if you read the article properly, you’ll see that it is saying the Ed can win an election, but with a social-democratic/broad left one.

      • treborc1

        I think the article is one of the better ones on here, it would be great to see a left leaning government in the UK, France, and Germany all getting around a table to try and sort out this mess, with a bit less on cuts and a bit more on growth.

        • keggsie

           I  agree Treborc. I hope when Ed M starts meeting Hollande they can develop a more cooperative approach that will help both France & the UK. It might also help to develop proper alternative policies for 2015.

          People ask what are Labour’s policies. My answer is why does Labour need to present policies now? We are not in government and the election is 3 years away.

          • treborc1

             I agree you do not need to give out policies because as Blair did the Tories would use them, but you have to give direction to the party, you  have to do a bit more then hint about your direction.

            At this moment I still think the public are really fed up we have had about 40 years of directionless government which spent money like no tomorrow on things we did not need like the wasted billions on IT, it would be nice to hear Miliband for instance to talk less about affordable homes and social homes council houses.

          • keggsie

             Totally agree. I think Ed is starting to get there. Sometimes people are too impatient. But impatience can cause problems. Your example is a good one but I also perceive a possibility that the rapid destruction of all things socially valuable (deliberately) may not be possible to restore when Ed becomes PM. In fact I am certain that this shower will all in its power to make sure restoration is so difficult it will take decades to do. When the last Labour gvt came to power I said at that time if it took 20 years to restore what we lost because of 18 years of Tory rule I would be satisfied. I just didn’t bank on Blair carrying on with the neoliberal agenda.

            So, I caution patience, patience and more patience. And stick together. Do as you said – show leadership and direction but be careful not to be drawn into making rash policy and spending decisions.

    • EmmaBurnell

      It must have been witty comebacks like that that made your advice so special…

    • Brumanuensis

      Given that according to recent reports, Blair has now come to share Balls and Miliband’s views on economic strategy, who’s to say he wouldn’t be following the same approach?

      (Assuming an alternate Tony Blair, born in 1969, who became Labour leader in 2010).

    • AlanGiles

      Thank you, Alistair Campbell,  erudite as ever

      * Leon Calvert (1927 –    )

  • Amber Star

    This is a very accurate interpretation of the YG polling. Enthusing center-left/ left voters to turn out & vote is essential.

    People who think this article is ‘dissing’ Blair are mistaken. The political circumstances were different in the run up to 1997 than they will be in the run up to 2015.

  • Robert

    The really really weird thing is that 9,000,000 people voted Labour at the last election in spite of them bankrupting the country. I blame those childish TV “debates” which failed to mention “cost control”, “austerity” or “cut backs” and no one pressed any one for their plans.  Obviously we won’t be seeing them again as they were clearly useless … and only misled, well, about 9,000,000 million people who didn’t notice the elephant in the room. Presumably we can look forward to these same people deciding which government we get next as well. It looks like we need a little intelligence test for potential voters to see if they have done at least some basic homework for themselves.  

    • treborc1

       Like what the mess labour made, or the mess the Tories have made

    • Dan Filson

      It is curious how this myth about Labour bankrupting the country persists. What happened was not that Labour “maxed out the credit card” but that revenues collapsed with the credit crunch. If you don’t believe me look at the statistics and observe how stamp duty receipts plummeted a one stage by 80%, and practically every head of tax revenues fell markedly. To have slashed revenue expenditure to match the falling receipts would have just accentuated the recession. I never agreed with PFI, not because it involved private sector money (though there is an argument that just as tax revenues should not be predicated to particular expenditure heads, so public expenditure should not be linked to particular sources of private sector money) but because it was a manoeuvre to muddy the waters of what was public sectr debt and because it deferred liabilities to future generations. But that apart, I don’t think the evidence supports the general Tory repeated mantra assertion that Labour grossly mishandled the economy. Thrift and prudence are virtues I do espouse in public finance, and these virtues are not under the sole proprietorship of the Tories as they so frequently assert.

      • Slakah

        The myth continues because due to the simiplicity and ease of comprehension of such an argument , luckily the left is clawing back some economic respect with the “Growth vs Austerity” line thats become ubiquitous post-Hollande. We’re also blessed that the tories don’t appear to have a back up plan, and they believed they could ride out using everyday debt metaphors, the british public aren’t stupid, and they know double dip recession should never be the answer.

  • Mike Homfray

    This is what I have been saying for a while and UKIP’s growth exacerbates it even more. We need to focus on those attracted to us – not Tories or others who like what the coalition is doing

  • Daniel Speight

     Maybe the wonks are catching up with public. The fact that Cameron couldn’t get a majority at the last election even though Labour had behaved pretty badly in its last few years in office, points possibly to a movement to left by quite a large section of the voting public. Certainly since then we have seen polls suggesting that public is prepared to turn its back on the ideas of Thatcher and what followed.

  • Charlie Mansell

    It does go down to the depth of segmented ‘reassurance strategy’ we aim to deploy over the next 3 years. Do we aim for around 400 seats or do we aim for a minimum of 320 in a Parliament of 600. If we aim for the former we would need to appeal to those more socially conservative centrists you accurately describe (this minimises the risk of failure), or if we go for the latter, there is of course still the risk we just fall short. Psychologically at this stage of opposition (just 2 years in) members are understandably more likely to prefer the former. If we had were in a third term of opposition members would be more likely to be open to the latter. Perhaps the Labour Party needs to develop its own ‘Risk Register’ for this sort of strategic debate as much as the NHS does?

    • Charlie Mansell

      Oops. Last sentence  should have reversed former and latter read: “Psychologically at this stage of opposition (just 2 years in) members are understandably more likely to prefer the latter. If we had were in a third term of opposition members would be more likely to be open to the former. Perhaps the Labour Party needs to develop its own ‘Risk Register’ for this sort of strategic debate as much as the NHS does?

  • Jeremy_Preece

    I find some of this a bit simplistic and have to say that I spent over 4 hours outside of a polling station a couple of weeks ago and got to hear all of the comments of those going in to vote.
    It is a very strong Tory area having been LibDem over 10 years ago. Labour had not even stood a candidate there for over 10 years.

    So often we heard about how people can’t understand what Labour stands for at the moment, and also how they can’t see how Ed M could be a prime minister. Okay it is the South of England and not natural Labour heartland. but there is clearly a problem if that is hnow we are percieved.

    The biggest issue for those I know in the South is the economy. The lack of fight back over this issue has left Labour as being branded as the cause of the economic woes of Britian, and it is the leadership’s fault that these lies are not nailed.

    I have many times said how Cameron and Osborne inopposition wanted to match Labour’s spending and how they opposed any control over the banking system whatsoever.  They like all parties in all countries on this planet didn’t see the crisis coming. However the lack of leadership makes Labour appear to want to take the blame for all of it. “Mistakes were made” is not a great opening line.

    Brown responded quickly and decisvely after the crash and at the end of the Labour government we were technically out of recession and the lower unemployment rates were still falling.  Labour said that to cut too fast and too quickly would only throw us into double dip recession and the LibDems (remember them?) said the same.

    We know how the LibDems U-turned on all of their promisses and this is why they are being hammered, and why so many of their voters are now on our side.

    The Tories have argued that the only way forward is auterity in order to reduce public spending and reduce the deficit. The justification is that the UK’s AAA credit rating is under threat.

    Now we see economic stagnation and a warning from the IMF that our recent decent into a double dip recession could see us loose the AAA credit rating too. Therefore the economic argument in favour of austerity is shot. To me that is the great difference between Labour and the coalition and it is massive one.

    In the South, as I went around dropping leaflets from house to house what did I notice? That so many houses had the vans parked outside of them, they were small business people, plumbers, electricians, heating and air-conditioning specialists, conservatory builders and so on. In other words they are not the big gready share holding board room carpet baggers, but hard working independant busnesses.

    My point? Well these were all businesses that are very vulnerable to the recession. These are all people who need to see customers with money in their pockets, and who would care more to see thier business florish than to see the deficit cleared a year or two early. In other words, if Labour can be seen to be economically competant and the provider of growth, then these people would be our natural supports, as there is something major in it for them.

    Economic competance override most other things in the parts of the UK where Labour needs to pick up if it is to win governemnt. It is also the case that voter turnout is low, meaning that even in so called strong Tory areas, there are far more people disengaged than supporting the Tories. In the area I was helping last Thursday, the Tories were knocking up and dragging down their voters, most of whom were well over 65, and for all of that they only managed to drag less than a third of them. So I am suggesting that we can do well if we can connect with the non voters, not just those who currently vote Tory.

    You are very right Andrew, when you say that Labour needs to look like a government in waiting, and we are a long way off that. I can agree to some extent that some more left wing ideas are more acceptable to a wider group than before. But this is down to experince of failed policies.

    There are many examples of this, but one of my pet ones is the railways. There is now a much wider support for nationalised railway than say 10 years ago. That is because experince has shown everyone who uses the railways how profit comes first, the prices are far too high, the service is poor, and the shareholders are always put first, and the poor old ordinary staff find themselves every day in the firing line of angry, digruntaled passengers. I would suggest that increasingly many do not want to see health, education and nearly everything else run just for the benefit of the board room.

    With the current level of government cock-ups, we really are in the place where everything is there for Labour’s taking. We just need a leadership to pull the pieces together, define what it is about, and lead. Then you will see the ten point lead start to double (or more). Then Labour can start to think about government. 

Latest

  • Comment The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    By Matthew Zarb-Cousin

    Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies. The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    By Douglas Alexander

    Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →