British voters overwhelmingly back Labour’s manifesto policies, poll finds

Income tax increases and improved workers rights are among proposals strongly supported by the public, survey shows

Voters overwhelmingly back policies set out in Labour’s leaked manifesto, including nationalising the railways, building more houses and raising taxes on higher earners, according to a poll.

The ComRes survey shows around half of people support state ownership of the train network (52 per cent), energy market (49 per cent) and Royal Mail (50 per cent).

Roughly a quarter of people (22, 24 and 25 per cent respectively) said they opposed the policies, outlined in the party’s draft document, which was signed off by Labour executives at a meeting on Thursday

The 20,000 word document revealed a radical plan for the country after 8 June; proposals that saw right-wing critics claiming the Labour leader wanted to drag Britain back to the 1970s.

Even some moderate Labour MPs were said to be in revolt over Mr Corbyn's programme of renationalisation and expanding public services, while Ms May branded them "disastrous socialist policies".

But the latest polling, conducted in the last 24 hours and published in the Daily Mirror, reveals wide-scale support for the proposals, even if the party leader remains unpopular.

On the plan to ban zero-hours contracts, 71 per cent said they backed the move, while just 16 per cent said they were against it.

Income tax hikes for the highest 5 per cent of earners on salaries of more than £80,000 also got the thumbs up from 65 per cent of voters, with 24 per cent opposed to higher levies.

And more than half (54 per cent) of voters said they supported the policy of building 100,000 more council houses each year.

Voters are split on whether MPs should be given a final vote on the terms of the Brexit deal, a policy that also found its way into the Labour manifesto.

Thirty-six per cent supported Labour’s call for Parliament to have a say at the end of the negotiating period, while 35 per cent are opposed, the survey found.

Meanwhile, Theresa May's support for fox hunting is at odds with nearly eight out of ten (78 per cent) of those polled, who said they wanted the ban to remain in place.

Voters were less flattering about the Labour leader, the survey found, with 56 per cent saying Mr Corbyn would be a “disaster” as prime minister and 30 per cent saying he should be given “a fair chance”.


Labour’s proposal for renationalisation of the railways is borne out by a Which? survey which reveals the extent of overcrowding and delays on the network.

More than half of travellers (53 per cent) could not get a seat at least once during the past six months, while one-in-seven (15 per cent) said this occurs "regularly".

Which? said it has been contacted by thousands of people sharing details of their nightmare train journeys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html

So called 'moderates' are not moderate, they are RW, Tory Lite and don't belong in the Labour Party.

And to those people who love the policies, but don't like JC, you wouldn't have the bloody policies without him, you'd have another Tory Lite manifesto that people would say 'why bother'.

Here's hoping people use their brains and vote for the policies, if they don't they deserve what they get, and it won't be pretty.

He has because they have expressly said THERE WILL BE NO RISES IN INCOME TAX OR NATIONAL INSURANCE for those earning under £80,000 and year (that's 90% of the population). May has absolutely refused to promise that.

I don't mind some of Corbyn's policies myself. There are others which I don't really approved of though. I'm not voting Tory obviously, so maybe Labour is an option. I'm still not sure about his previous tolerance for the IRA though - that annoys me.

Last night we got a leaked version of the Labour manifesto. Over the next week it will be joined by the manifestos from all the other parties too. Lots of people will write articles about their impact. We will see polls asking about those policies and whether people approve of them. Lots of people will ask what impact they will have on voting intention or the result. The answer is probably not much. Specific policies make very little difference to voting intention.

This is counter-intuitive to many. Surely in an election on who is going to run the country, what they’ll say they’ll do will matter? One might very well well think it is what elections SHOULD be about. The thing is, it’s not really how people work.

First, most people don’t know what the policies are, so they can’t be influenced by them. One of the most difficult things for people who follow politics closely (which probably includes most people reading this) to grasp is how different they are from the vast majority who don’t pay much attention to politics. For example, in the first few weeks of the campaign Theresa May was the subject of mockery from people who follow politics for continually using the soundbite “strong and stable leadership”. While it sounded absurd to those of us who heard it a thousand times, when YouGov asked a representative sample of the public if they could recall any slogans or messages she had said only 15% remembered it. Most policies make no difference because most people have no knowledge of them.

Even if people were more aware of policies, it’s not really the sort of thing they vote upon. There is a huge body of academic research around elections and voter choice, and the general consensus is that the important factors in deciding how people vote are which party they normally identify with, what their perceptions are of the leaders are and which party they think would most competently handle the big issues of the day.

As human beings we don’t tend to be particularly good judges of what leads to our decisions (we all tend to overestimate how thoughtful and rational we are, when in reality our decisions are normally based on a jumble of bias, instinct and rules-of-thumb, which we rationalise afterwards). However, if you ask voters directly we don’t even think that policies are why we vote the way we do – most people say that it’s the broad values and priorities of a party that matter, or how good their leader is, not the specific policies they offer.

Of course that doesn’t mean policies aren’t part of the mix. When it comes to whether the public think that a party is competent, whether or not they have policies that seem sensible and well-thought through is probably a factor. What sort of policies a party puts forward will make a contribution to what people make of a party’s values and principles. They are not irrelevant, but they are only a small part of a much bigger mix. What this all means is that one can’t look at the popularity of individual policies and conclude a party will gain support. Any party can put together a shopping list of superficially attractive sounding policies – it’s whether collectively those policies, the people putting them forward, the values they represent, how competently they come across, how all these things come together to create a party that people identify with and think would offer a competent government.

In short, in the absence of other other big events in the coming week, don’t be surprised if the polls carried out after the manifestos appear are much the same as the polls carried out before they were published.


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9877

I support a massive reduction in taxpayer funded quangos and in the huge layers of unnecessary taxpayer funded bureaucracy at all levels...!!!

Supporting a party's manifesto does not alter voting intentions.

How the leader is perceived can affect voting intentions.

So it's basically a popularity contest.

This is why western politics is going to the dogs.

Eilzel wrote:Supporting a party's manifesto does not alter voting intentions.

How the leader is perceived can affect voting intentions.

So it's basically a popularity contest.

This is why western politics is going to the dogs.

You are right on one aspect and emphatically wrong on the other.

You are right to say that people have little interest in manifestos Eilzel.

Where you are wrong is on popularity.

May is seen as a strong leader ( a reminder of the past, ie Thatcher, a strong willed woman) of which is why people like her. Even after she comes out with supporting fox Hunting. People in the majority are against Fox hunting and still she remains unscathed by this.

That does not look like popularity to me but something else.

That means people have faith in her to lead.

On one aspect that is great, as she then empowers women. On the other, what is it that make people believe in her miles more than corbyn?

There is only one reason.

She is dogmatic in being the symbol of separatism through Brexit. People believe she is going to deliver. That is what matters more to people at the moment. We both are remainers and yet clearly far more people back her as the champion of Brexit. Her popularity is based on her being a staunch brexiter.

To me it is about media presentation. No news outlet has given Corbyn a fair hearing. Even The Guardian undermines him on a day to day basis. May is given a free run.

She was a remainer this time last year, and only began a 'staunch Brexiter' when wanting to become PM.

She refuses to take part in TV debates with other leaders-why? Is she afriad her image of being strong and stable would shatter under intense questioning?

The Tories btw have borrowed far more and substantially increased the national debt significantly since 2010. All while giving tax breaks to the rich and making cuts to public services. The pound is still on a post-Brexit low. Hardly stable.

But the media hammers the point anyway and it seems to be working. Why risk debates?

I agree that Corbyn has major issue with presentation. He doesn't act well on the spot and in interviews sounds mumbly and disinterested. But that's just image.

Eilzel wrote:To me it is about media presentation. No news outlet has given Corbyn a fair hearing. Even The Guardian undermines him on a day to day basis. May is given a free run.

She was a remainer this time last year, and only began a 'staunch Brexiter' when wanting to become PM.

She refuses to take part in TV debates with other leaders-why? Is she afriad her image of being strong and stable would shatter under intense questioning?

The Tories btw have borrowed far more and substantially increased the national debt significantly since 2010. All while giving tax breaks to the rich and making cuts to public services. The pound is still on a post-Brexit low. Hardly stable.

But the media hammers the point anyway and it seems to be working. Why risk debates?

I agree that Corbyn has major issue with presentation. He doesn't act well on the spot and in interviews sounds mumbly and disinterested. But that's just image.

Like with religion, people have no faith in him and you may ask why?

If the Guardian undermines him, what does that say to you?

That people have zero faith in him.

People have seen this man be pally with terrorist groups, from the IRA to Islamic Jihad. To shake hands with groups of people who are far removed by billions of miles of being like Nelson Mandela. A man who wants to lead saying to people at an extra time of heightened fear. That he will make them vastly more vulnerable, because this loon things he can negotiate with unadulterated hatred.

I mean his best case for defending this country is by taking away the very security they have, in a nuclear deterrent?

The Tories can and will borrow as much as you like. A factor they learnt from labour when in power. That is not gonna sway people. Clearly at the moment, people are self determination mode and they believe she is going to deliver.

Look back and why people do not vote for him and why they still back his policies.

Because they believe his policies do not ring true and that he would never be able to deliver.

I think that speaks more about how astute people are of a sickening virus like Corbyn

How can you refer to him as a sickening virus? Like his policies or not, he clearly has decent intentions and is not a bad guy. A sickening virus is rather hyperbolic don't you think?

I believe the media are against him because they are part of the establishment, an establishment Corbyn does not fit the mould of at all.

A brief point on the nuclear deterrent. I actually oppose getting rid of it. Especially post-Brexit we need something to allow our country to remain a major player in the world. However, I acknowledge the limitations and drawbacks of it being useless against rogue terror organisations and incredibly expensive.

Eilzel wrote:How can you refer to him as a sickening virus? Like his policies or not, he clearly has decent intentions and is not a bad guy. A sickening virus is rather hyperbolic don't you think?

I believe the media are against him because they are part of the establishment, an establishment Corbyn does not fit the mould of at all.

A brief point on the nuclear deterrent. I actually oppose getting rid of it. Especially post-Brexit we need something to allow our country to remain a major player in the world. However, I acknowledge the limitations and drawbacks of it being useless against rogue terror organisations and incredibly expensive.

How can a man have decent intentions when they smile and shake hands with people of hate?

He has tried poorly to distance himself from the fact he was pally with terrorists groups. He then whitewashed countless antisemitism. As well as his blame the west attitude and buy into conspiracies like 9/11 being a set up.

Are you seriously telling me you would back someone with policies. He has not shown is workable or can pay for them, because he claims he will?

The media dislike with good reason. He is dishonest

So if you agree in keeping the deterrent, you then will understand why many voters are put off with Corbyn

Catch up this later Eilzel, as am tired

All the best mate

I don't think the nuclear deterrent is make or break for most voters didge. Brexit, the economy, the NHS and inmigration are everything.

Eilzel wrote:I don't think the nuclear deterrent is make or break for most voters didge. Brexit, the economy, the NHS and inmigration are everything.

Well do you remember Labour under Kinnock when Labour wanted to also rid the country of its nuclear deterrent?

The point is people do not believe Labour will be able to deliver on their promises.

I think the op is a load of bullshit.