The monthly YouGov poll for next year's Assembly Elections has been published for October and there is good news for Labour, more bad news for the Lib Dems and the possibility of UKIP getting its first Assembly Member.
The figures are
Labour 44% no change on September
Plaid Cymru on 21% (up 2%)
Conservatives 19% (down 3%)
Lib Dems 9% (down 1%)
Others 8% with a strong showing for UKIP in North Wales.
Labour must feel a majority next May is a growing certainly for the Party while the Lib Dems must be hoping that Welsh voters won’t blame them for the cuts and job losses and that their support holds up next May.
Plaid Cymru will be pleased that they are back above 20% and back into second place, but they remain 23% behind Labour is proof they have been outmanoeuvred since May’s Elections.
The Conservatives maybe slightly concerned at a 3% drop in month, but will be more worried at the growing strength of UKIP and the threat that could pose to their numbers in the Assembly elections because a large proportion of Welsh Tories member remain opposed to devolution.
On voting intention for the more powers referendum on 3rd March 2011 there is good news for the Yes camp with 52% supporting a YES votes up from 49% in September and the NO Camp falling 1% to 29% since last month’s poll. That’s a healthy 23% lead despite the lack of a formal YES or No Campaigns.
More analysis HERE from Welsh Poll Watch
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
We have a question and a date, so where are the YES and NO Campaigns for the Assembly referendum?
With all the focus on the cuts, job losses and the general economic gloom that is dominating the news, debate and every day chat it easy to forget that in just over five months on March 3rd 2011 the historic/tidying up exercise/slippery slope to independence (delete as appropriate) referendum on giving the National Assembly for Wales full law making powers is being held.
And judging from my own friends, family and work colleagues who are quite politically aware, it seems that a lot of people don't know there is even a referendum taking place next year. If this is a reflection of wider public sentiment it proves how hard the task at hand will be to engage people and get them enthused over what most experts agree are minor changes and we’ve got Peter Hain and his 2006 dog’s breakfast of a Government of Wales Act to thank for the referendum after he bowed to the anti devolution sentiment among his Welsh Labour colleages.
But let’s not dwell on this matter, something that would change that situation would be for the phoney war about more powers to end and for the YES and NO campaigns to be formed officially, and then for both sides to start campaigning.
On the YES side Tomorrow’s Wales has been laying some good foundations, but as far as a formal YES Campaign is concerned you are more likely to read about hen’s teeth. On the No Campaign side it seems True Wales are likely to take the lead. It will be interesting to see what sides Labour and Conservative politicians and party members end up on this time as well.
To be fair to the ever shrinking Welsh press they have been trying to get the politicians and campaigners to part with information for months about when things will get going, but are having precious little luck.
So with the UK Government linking implementation of the Holtham Commission that said Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million a year to a YES vote in the referendum, you’d think it would give Welsh politicians even more incentive to get out there campaigning, but it seems all sides are happy to sit back and blame the other side for the economic mess were in, rather than focus on something that could help us here in Wales.
And judging from my own friends, family and work colleagues who are quite politically aware, it seems that a lot of people don't know there is even a referendum taking place next year. If this is a reflection of wider public sentiment it proves how hard the task at hand will be to engage people and get them enthused over what most experts agree are minor changes and we’ve got Peter Hain and his 2006 dog’s breakfast of a Government of Wales Act to thank for the referendum after he bowed to the anti devolution sentiment among his Welsh Labour colleages.
But let’s not dwell on this matter, something that would change that situation would be for the phoney war about more powers to end and for the YES and NO campaigns to be formed officially, and then for both sides to start campaigning.
On the YES side Tomorrow’s Wales has been laying some good foundations, but as far as a formal YES Campaign is concerned you are more likely to read about hen’s teeth. On the No Campaign side it seems True Wales are likely to take the lead. It will be interesting to see what sides Labour and Conservative politicians and party members end up on this time as well.
To be fair to the ever shrinking Welsh press they have been trying to get the politicians and campaigners to part with information for months about when things will get going, but are having precious little luck.
So with the UK Government linking implementation of the Holtham Commission that said Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million a year to a YES vote in the referendum, you’d think it would give Welsh politicians even more incentive to get out there campaigning, but it seems all sides are happy to sit back and blame the other side for the economic mess were in, rather than focus on something that could help us here in Wales.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Cameron v Osborne?
There was an interesting article from Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph last week about the relationship between David Cameron and George Osborne and the fact they are from different Conservative traditions makes their relationship more complicated than is often portrayed by the media and commentators.
Peter writes 'It’s time to ditch one piece of conventional wisdom which has been taking hold ever since the formation of the Coalition Government in May. This concerns the nature of the connection between George Osborne and David Cameron. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister, we have repeatedly been told, have formed an unbreakable partnership which is so close that in effect they speak with one voice.
In the light of the events of the past few weeks, this analysis needs urgent reassessment. There are grave and substantial differences between the men. These include: the scale of defence spending; the shape of the welfare state; family policy; the nature of the Conservative Party and the future of the Coalition itself. Factions inside Downing Street are starting to establish themselves around each man, and more interesting still, hostile briefing has begun.
One important case in point concerns Osborne’s surprise revelation on a BBC sofa in Birmingham two weeks ago that he was planning to strip child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers. In the light of the furore that followed, I am told that the Prime Minister privately took Osborne aside and asked to know what was going on.
Following this conversation, the Chancellor disloyally briefed several journalists that Cameron was, in Osborne’s words, “having a wobble”.
It needs to be acknowledged at once that some of these arguments are purely structural and therefore non-malign. Osborne was merely fulfilling his role as head of the Treasury in calling for fierce defence cuts, while Cameron was likewise doing his job as Prime Minister when he listened carefully to the arguments of the service chiefs. But many of them are not.
Indeed, at the heart of the argument between the men lies a fundamental and irreconcilable divergence of views about the purpose of politics, the role of the state and the nature of their party.
Osborne is a neo-Thatcherite. It should not be forgotten that his first move when appointed shadow chancellor by the outgoing Conservative leader Michael Howard in 2005 was to call for a debate on the merits of a “flat tax”, a highly regressive method of taxation which was then fashionable among the more Right-wing members of George W Bush’s Republican Party. To be fair, Osborne quickly dropped this idea.
David Cameron stems from a more mainstream Conservative tradition. He cannot be really called a Thatcherite, while his moral and emotional predisposition stretches back towards the paternalistic Toryism of Benjamin Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin and Harold Macmillan.'
He goes on to say ’In his conference speech, Cameron transcended his party and addressed the country. He summoned up images of total war in order to demand a common sacrifice and send out the powerful message that “we are all in this together”. He was (considering the partisan nature of the occasion) generous to his political opponents, and indeed this has been a very welcome characteristic of the Prime Minister since he entered No 10 in May.
Not a fraction of this grace was evident from George Osborne when he stood up in the Commons on Wednesday afternoon. It is hard to overstate the gravity and seriousness of that occasion. The Chancellor was making a series of announcements which – necessary though they were – will cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs or livelihoods. He should have been sombre and statesmanlike.
Instead, he sprinkled his speech with cheap and narky remarks (for instance drawing attention to the absence of Gordon Brown) that were designed to irritate Labour.
From the start of his speech he pursued party advantage. When he had bad news to deliver he gabbled through it very fast and used jargon, a bad habit of Mr Brown’s.'
And finishes with ‘There was not a sniff of this generosity in the Osborne speech, which concentrated instead on the idle and feckless poor. The idea of the universal tax credit – central to Iain Duncan Smith’s concept of making it economically worthwhile for the jobless to return to work – was strangely sidelined.
The Big Society was not the only casualty. After Wednesday, it will be very much more difficult for Nick Clegg to convince Lib Dem MPs to remain loyal to the Coalition. There are two ways of selling spending cuts. One is the sneering, smirking and partisan way favoured by Osborne on Wednesday. The other involves being open, expansive, and rising above party politics.
Only one of these two methods has any chance of securing the assent of the British people. Unfortunately, the Chancellor chose the wrong one this week. George Osborne is in danger of becoming a problem which David Cameron must start to ponder.'
Peter writes 'It’s time to ditch one piece of conventional wisdom which has been taking hold ever since the formation of the Coalition Government in May. This concerns the nature of the connection between George Osborne and David Cameron. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister, we have repeatedly been told, have formed an unbreakable partnership which is so close that in effect they speak with one voice.
In the light of the events of the past few weeks, this analysis needs urgent reassessment. There are grave and substantial differences between the men. These include: the scale of defence spending; the shape of the welfare state; family policy; the nature of the Conservative Party and the future of the Coalition itself. Factions inside Downing Street are starting to establish themselves around each man, and more interesting still, hostile briefing has begun.
One important case in point concerns Osborne’s surprise revelation on a BBC sofa in Birmingham two weeks ago that he was planning to strip child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers. In the light of the furore that followed, I am told that the Prime Minister privately took Osborne aside and asked to know what was going on.
Following this conversation, the Chancellor disloyally briefed several journalists that Cameron was, in Osborne’s words, “having a wobble”.
It needs to be acknowledged at once that some of these arguments are purely structural and therefore non-malign. Osborne was merely fulfilling his role as head of the Treasury in calling for fierce defence cuts, while Cameron was likewise doing his job as Prime Minister when he listened carefully to the arguments of the service chiefs. But many of them are not.
Indeed, at the heart of the argument between the men lies a fundamental and irreconcilable divergence of views about the purpose of politics, the role of the state and the nature of their party.
Osborne is a neo-Thatcherite. It should not be forgotten that his first move when appointed shadow chancellor by the outgoing Conservative leader Michael Howard in 2005 was to call for a debate on the merits of a “flat tax”, a highly regressive method of taxation which was then fashionable among the more Right-wing members of George W Bush’s Republican Party. To be fair, Osborne quickly dropped this idea.
David Cameron stems from a more mainstream Conservative tradition. He cannot be really called a Thatcherite, while his moral and emotional predisposition stretches back towards the paternalistic Toryism of Benjamin Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin and Harold Macmillan.'
He goes on to say ’In his conference speech, Cameron transcended his party and addressed the country. He summoned up images of total war in order to demand a common sacrifice and send out the powerful message that “we are all in this together”. He was (considering the partisan nature of the occasion) generous to his political opponents, and indeed this has been a very welcome characteristic of the Prime Minister since he entered No 10 in May.
Not a fraction of this grace was evident from George Osborne when he stood up in the Commons on Wednesday afternoon. It is hard to overstate the gravity and seriousness of that occasion. The Chancellor was making a series of announcements which – necessary though they were – will cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs or livelihoods. He should have been sombre and statesmanlike.
Instead, he sprinkled his speech with cheap and narky remarks (for instance drawing attention to the absence of Gordon Brown) that were designed to irritate Labour.
From the start of his speech he pursued party advantage. When he had bad news to deliver he gabbled through it very fast and used jargon, a bad habit of Mr Brown’s.'
And finishes with ‘There was not a sniff of this generosity in the Osborne speech, which concentrated instead on the idle and feckless poor. The idea of the universal tax credit – central to Iain Duncan Smith’s concept of making it economically worthwhile for the jobless to return to work – was strangely sidelined.
The Big Society was not the only casualty. After Wednesday, it will be very much more difficult for Nick Clegg to convince Lib Dem MPs to remain loyal to the Coalition. There are two ways of selling spending cuts. One is the sneering, smirking and partisan way favoured by Osborne on Wednesday. The other involves being open, expansive, and rising above party politics.
Only one of these two methods has any chance of securing the assent of the British people. Unfortunately, the Chancellor chose the wrong one this week. George Osborne is in danger of becoming a problem which David Cameron must start to ponder.'
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Will the decline in living standards be more potent than job losses for the Coalition?
Both the BBC’s Andrew Neil and City AM’s Editor Allister Heath this week have written about the squeeze on household budgets through a combination of, pay freezes and inflation that is already effecting people’s spending power ahead of the impact of the spending cuts and the VAT rise in January 2011, they claim its a ticking time bomb for the Coalition that has so far gone unnoticed.
On his blog this week Andrew Neil wrote ‘Figures I've seen suggest that living standards for those on average incomes are now in decline -- it is as if there's been a national pay cut thanks to very low wage growth and a very strong rise in taxes and prices (the highest in Western Europe) -- and that's before the rise in VAT to 20% in January. The squeeze on earning power is probably the toughest for almost 30 years.
The political fallout from that could be much worse than the cuts.’
While over at City AM in his Editorial on Friday Allister Heath wrote ‘There is a simple reason why retail sales are beginning to fall, and it has very little to do with the Comprehensive Spending review. A triple whammy of limited pay rises, elevated inflation and tax increases have conspired to impoverish most of the public over the past year, a development that has been barely picked up in Westminster and by the media. In those circumstances, it was always going to be the case that people would have less money to spend – hence why retail sales fell for the second month in a row in September, by 0.2 per cent.
Take pay rises. Total earnings are up just 1.7 per cent over the year; private sector workers have seen pay rises of just 1.2 per cent. Few companies can afford to be generous in this uncertain environment, characterised by a spike in input costs; fortunately, employees have been understanding and cooperative.'
Now it’s hard to imagine that job losses aren’t going to have a major effect on families, communities and local business especially if people can’t find alternative work, or that the media won’t pick up on the short, medium and long term damage that unemployment and workless households have on those families and communities affected, but both Andrew Neil and Alistair Heath make a valid point that the decline in living standards for those who have remained in work during this recession won’t go unnoticed.
And the reason its important politically as well as economically is because it’s the very same voters who are being effected now and will be in the future, who are most likely to have voted for the Coalition back in May and the Conservatives will need to be re elected on their own in May 2015.
On his blog this week Andrew Neil wrote ‘Figures I've seen suggest that living standards for those on average incomes are now in decline -- it is as if there's been a national pay cut thanks to very low wage growth and a very strong rise in taxes and prices (the highest in Western Europe) -- and that's before the rise in VAT to 20% in January. The squeeze on earning power is probably the toughest for almost 30 years.
The political fallout from that could be much worse than the cuts.’
While over at City AM in his Editorial on Friday Allister Heath wrote ‘There is a simple reason why retail sales are beginning to fall, and it has very little to do with the Comprehensive Spending review. A triple whammy of limited pay rises, elevated inflation and tax increases have conspired to impoverish most of the public over the past year, a development that has been barely picked up in Westminster and by the media. In those circumstances, it was always going to be the case that people would have less money to spend – hence why retail sales fell for the second month in a row in September, by 0.2 per cent.
Take pay rises. Total earnings are up just 1.7 per cent over the year; private sector workers have seen pay rises of just 1.2 per cent. Few companies can afford to be generous in this uncertain environment, characterised by a spike in input costs; fortunately, employees have been understanding and cooperative.'
Now it’s hard to imagine that job losses aren’t going to have a major effect on families, communities and local business especially if people can’t find alternative work, or that the media won’t pick up on the short, medium and long term damage that unemployment and workless households have on those families and communities affected, but both Andrew Neil and Alistair Heath make a valid point that the decline in living standards for those who have remained in work during this recession won’t go unnoticed.
And the reason its important politically as well as economically is because it’s the very same voters who are being effected now and will be in the future, who are most likely to have voted for the Coalition back in May and the Conservatives will need to be re elected on their own in May 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)