Labour Government Hits Rock Bottom in Poll

[cal04]

A poll for tomorrow’s News of the World put Labour on just 28% as it goes into what will probably be its last annual conference before a general election in the spring, one point behind the Liberal Democrats on 29% and three behind the Conservatives on 32%.

The last time Labour plumbed such depths was under the leadership of Michael Foot, and the party has not trailed both of its main rivals since the heyday of the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s.

Both polls were conducted at the end of a successful conference week for Charles Kennedy’s Lib Dems, and each recorded a seven-point boost for the party.They suggest that the issue of Iraq and the ongoing crisis over British hostage Kenneth Bigley are seriously damaging Labour ratings.


The IoS poll found that Mr Blair is considered out of touch and inflexible by as many people as said the same of Margaret Thatcher just before her downfall in 1990.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3546519

[fedsron2us]

1. Out of touch and inflexible

Yes, everyone said the same about Margaret Thatcher. This did not stop her from winning three General Elections on the trot. She was only removed by a rebellion within her own party. This is very unlikely to happen to Blair since the Labour party has no tradition of ousting sitting Prime Ministers just because they are unpopular with the voters. In addition the British first past the post system for electing MP's favours the Labour party and not its rivals so a poll rating within 3-4% of the Tories or Liberal Democrats is not a terminal position. Normally, when it comes round to General Elections, most of the disgruntled voters picked up by these samples tend to return to their traditional parties. The following thread explains how it might pan out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x495

Much as I dislike Blair I think we are stuck with him for the forseeable future.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Some things are looking up

Aznar
Berlusconi
Blair
Bush
Howard

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Would a Conservative PM be any better?

:shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

16. I'm in favor of Labour replacing Blair

Like Bush, he lied to drum up support for the invasion of a sovereign state that, in fact, posed no immediate threat to anyone. As far as I am concerned, that makes both Bush and Blair war criminals; both should be replaced as leaders and be amde to stand trail before an international tribunal.

[struggle4progress]

3. Tony's a frickin disaster. He should step down for the party. eom

[AndyTiedye]

4. No, Bliar is Taking His Party Down With Him

That is the way * wants it.

[Yuffi]

5. Exactly

Then the conservatives can come to power in the UK. This is part of the PNAC agenda for Europe.

[leesa]

8. True. But all the other European governments seem to be going liberal.

The conservatives may take this election but it is doubtful they will last. Tony's party should dump the traitor ASAP.

[AmanAplanKerry]

9. Are they going liberal or socialist?

I see more socialism infiltrating the ranks rather than liberalism.

[Bridget Burke]

10. Socialism "infiltrating the ranks"

"Ranks"? Sounds rather military.

Anyway, Socialism is a valid political concept. Only idiots are still scared of the Red Menace.

[JoFerret]

6. Blame Bush

Bush brings down Blair and a better Britain - that's the headline

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Feeding these numbers into the electoral calculator

http://www.financialcalculus.co.uk/election/index.html

("now remember, this is just a bit of fun"), gives:

News of the World:
Labour 276
Conservative 259
Lib Dem 80
Others 31

Independent on Sunday:
Labour 356
Conservative 182
Lib Dem 77
Others 31 (the 'Others' figure may be kept constant in their calculation for simplicity)

So in one, Labour is well short of a majority, and would have to do a lot to keep its left wing backbenchers and the Lib Dems satisfied; in the other, Labour would be able to govern pretty much as now, as long as it didn't outrage too many backbenchers. The few percentage points may make all the difference.

[D-Notice]

12. I find it odd that

the Murdoch paper gives Bliar the worse poll-ratings, while a left-wing anti-war paper gives Bliar the better one...

[non sociopath skin]

13. Don't find it odd at all, EG.

Murdoch's voting preference for the next UK Election is
1) Any Conservative to the right of Michael Howard.
2) Michael Howard.
3) Tony Blair.

Sure, we all look forward to the demise of the Bliar but Howard (or any other Tory front-bencher) in Downing St. and Shrub in the White House would be an even greater nightmare than the present deal.

Meanwhile, anyone expecting Charlie Kennedy's Middle England Jumble Sale Society rag-bag of a "Party" being of any help of all should have spent more time watching their Conference last week. They have no chance of being largest party. If they are in a position to form a coalition with the Tories (and don't kid youself that that wouldn't be their favoured option - they hate "Old Labour" even more than they hate the Blairites!) they will be outflanked and marginalised. If they form a coalition with New Labour the Blair agenda will continue.

At the present time, the best hope is Kerry and Blair or - preferably - Brown. Sorry that it's come to this but ....

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. One more poll today, in The Observer

Con 33
Labour 32
Lib Dem 25

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2004/story/0,14991,1313138,00.html

The Observer thinks that would give them a majority of 24; the "Financial Calculus" election calculator reckons it would be 2 short of an absolute majority.

[cal04]

15. Polls apart

Despite offering substantially different predictions, all three of today’s opinion polls contain bad news for Blair's government.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/cat_uk_politics.html