This is the latest YouGov polling data chart for the period since the general election in the UK:
For the sake of comparison, this is the chart in the five-year period running up to that election:
The current data is:
- Reform UK 27%(+1),
- CON 17%(nc)
- LAB 17%(-3)
- GRN 16%(+1)
- LDEM 15%(nc)
- Others 3%
The figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
To say that is unprecedented is to understate the situation.
The country is anti-fascist, clearly.
Fascists could win, especially with Tory support.
And still, Labour says nothing about electoral reform.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Great to see the Greens moving on up. I Imagine there’s still plenty polling labour who are just clinging on through blind loyalty, or unawareness of the alternatives yet.
Our current system tells us what voters don’t want… but little about what they do want.
A look at policy would probably make me a Green. I am a member of the Labour Party in the (vain??) hope that I can have some influence over the policy of a Party that might realistically (under FPTP) be in government… but I voted LibDem do kick out our Tory MP. What a nonsense. PR would allow me to vote for who I want and encourage political parties to make policy on principle rather than triangulation.
I would add that Roy Jenkins (Labour Home Secretary in the 1960s) abolished the Death Penalty and legalised Homosexuality – there was no “manifesto commitment” nor referendum. He just did “the right thing”. So, if Labour really wants this then they could just “do it”.
I very much agree with the last point.
keir Starmer is going to have to shift his position on a number of things if he wishes to survive beyond May, I think. PR is certainly one of those positions. and there is plenty of support for it within the Labour party. Caerphilly put the writing on the wall for Labour in very big bold letters. I don’t see much chance of Labour doing any better in Wales next year. The electorate looks as if it is shifting left and it is also willing to vote tactically to keep Reform out of power. Good. I too am a Labour member, but if I had a vote in Wales next year, which I do not, I might well vote for Plaid just to be on the safe side. Labour has had a long run in Wales and parties need to earn their votes not expect them as a historic right. So the likelihood is that May will bring a reckoning. What happens in the budget really matters. The two key tasks for Reeves are to take more tax from the wealthy and to bear down on the cost of living. Otherwise there will be a challenge to Starmer’s leadership. There might be one anyway. I think Lucy Powell could beat him if Burnham cannot get into the Commons in time. It will be interesting to see how she does over the next six months.
With 4 years to go before the next election, LINO are maybe hoping that something will turn up and things will change in their favour over that period: some magic will ensure they go up in the polls, the others go down, and they will eventually win a well-deserved 2nd term (albeit maybe with a reduced majority since they had to make hard choices). But in the absence of a really convincing change of heart and change in direction of travel, that will not happen. Since the Greens have all the momentum and may well increase their share of voting intentions and Your Party may eventually take a few more votes away from LINO, it is possible that LINO could be relegated to 4th or even 5th party status. A prolonged period of that could just change their minds about PR. In that scenario they may decide that hoping to be the biggest party in a non-Reform/Tory coalition is preferably to complete oblivion. Either way, it is clear from ongoing media bias that the Establishment are throwing their lot in with Reform so won’t be overly bothered if LINO goes down having served their purpose of keeping the music playing for the elite for a while.
The way forward and way to keep Reform out has to be the building of
Progressive Alliances – already signs that is happening at a local and regional level (often led by ex Labour activists).
Til now the Greens and LibDems have been resistant to standing down candidates – especially at a national level. The surge in Green membership seems to be coming from the left and Zuck positions himself to appeal to this new Red/Green membership. Greens seen to have caught the wave initiate but Your Party who have lots the plot to internal battle before they have officially launched.
I feel save forecasting that local elections results next May are going to be highly unpredictable and opinion polls will continue to be poor at predicting bye election results.
For as long as their donors keep paying them, Labour will ignore PR.
True.
As for PR – yes please – just do it.
And that way, rather than keeping Reform and the Tories out, we could have them ‘in’ where we could keep an eye on them, and also stop the little grievances that get exploited by them from getting out of control with some sensible and fair polices to head them off. Like a proper, grown up democracy should.
PR doesn’t get round the problem of a person say liking 10% of what Reform offer, 40% of the Greens, 30% of a Nationalist Party and 20% wanting less government full stop.
You still only get 1 vote. You can’t apportion it.
Let’s live in the land of the possible, shall we?
Wholeheartedly agree that the population is generally anti-fascist and that a change to PR is urgently needed. But a quick Wiki search reveals several different flavours so it is important to get the choice of PR right to enable a fair outcome. We don’t want a repeat of the AV referendum held during Cameron’s time as PM.
The Electoral Reform Society provide a good explainer in case anyone is lurking here from LINO:
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/
I prefer multi member constituency STV
Labour need PR and PR
Proportional Representation might keep Reform out for a while, but not permanently, at best they would be permanently snapping at the heels of a coalition that kept them out and continue to influence policy.
Given Labour are politically closer to Reform than the Green Party it could be a Labour – Conservative coalition to keep Reform out, The Lib Dems are a possibility though. A Green, Your Party, Lib Dem coalition might work, but probably wouldn’t.
A Reform-Conservative coalition might kick Labour out.
The best reason for wanting Proportional Representation is because it is a fundamentally more democratic system, not in the hope of engineering a particular result.
If Labour wants any chance, then it needs much better Public Relations and really a fundamental change of direction to go with it.
I sent this letter to the Guardian, but it was not published.
CAERPHILLY SHOWS LABOUR’S MORAL EXHAUSTION- AND A DEEPER CRISIS IN BRITAIN- Politics, 24th October.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Guardian
Dear Editor
As the headline says – Caerphilly shows “Labours moral exhaustion.” But the editorial fails to say that Caerphilly’s collective wisdom shows Labour the way out of “a deeper crisis in Britain.”
Is it not obvious that they want a government that is not LINO (Labour In Name Only).They want Proper Labour policies and action, and clearly do not want Reform.
There was clear evidence that with first pass the post, there was a good chance that Reform could win. Answer – vote tactically for the party best placed to beat them, in this case Plaid Cymru.
Message to Labour – In the absence of a PR voting system, people will vote tactically, which in many cases will be to Labour’s disadvantage.
Yours sincerely
Related to this, I was throw out of the Labour party in 2017 for advocating tactical voting here in Bath, to get rid of a Tory MP, where everyone knew that there was not a snowballs chance in hell of having a Labour MP. Saved me the trouble of resigning.
I see that the charming Luke Akehurst MP is now advocating tactical voting. Will we see him kicked out?
I am definitely with the greens, Zach seems to get it.
If there was an electoral pact and no Green candidate in my area I could accept a Your Party Representative and if it was a single transferable vote it would go to Labour before it went to Conservatives or Reform, it’s crazy that we cannot vote with our conscience.
PR would be great, single transferable vote could be implemented without any major changes to how MPs are tied to constituencies.
This doesn’t need a referendum the government has a huge mandate and was elected on a platform of change, it does need someone as PM who has courage. I fear this is exactly why it will not happen.
My MP, Andrew Ranger (Lab Wrexham)….to whom I write regularly recently invited me (us) to support him in reviewing the British electoral system. His web site reads thus:
The NCER would ask 4 questions:
What are the criteria for a suitable voting system for general elections in modern Britain?
Does the current FPTP voting system meet these criteria?
Are there other voting systems which might better meet these criteria?
Based on these criteria, on balance, which voting system would best serve modern Britain?
Is there a whiff of sense within Labour?
Labour can’t admit to the need for PR, because it would necessitate playing well with others – something the party has long struggled to do.
Cant see either Labour or Tories ever going for PR. Yes Labour members want it – but the way Starmer operates that’s enough to rule it out
The real story here is that all parties and political groups who see themselves as progressive need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is possible on the polling as it stands that Reform could gain a significant majority with 28% of the vote. So while the other parties fight over who is the purest form of progress we end up with a neo fascist government on a minority vote.
Now is the time for groups such as Compass to get their hands dirty and start to work between parties and create a progressive alliance. In areas with all out three member elections in May that would look like standing say two Labour and one Green in one ward, while in another two LibDems and one Labour and another two Greens and one Lib Dem and so on, with all parties agreeing to support each other and then sort out a coalition after the elections.
My question, which I will be asking at the Compass AGM in two weeks time is are their any grown ups in each of the parties who are willing to to see the real threat to our culture and freedoms posed by Reform and the alt right, and work together to to see progressive policies implemented?
Part of that discussion will have to include looking at the first past the post electoral system and agreeing that it no longer works in a multi party environment.
Labour were a broad church, indeed the 1945 Labour government based a lot of its policy on the work of two progressive Liberals, Beverage and Keynes. We have now reached the point were each party is more of a narrow pew and the broad church of 1945 is spread across several parties.
If we are to stop the rise of Reform we have to create a modern day broad church. I am not confident those at the top of today’s parties will agree but we have to try.
I agree. I will raise this with my local party. I expect it to be an uphill struggle though. it may well take the shock of defeats in May to concentrate minds.
If you want a ‘broad church’, you get rid of ‘king of the castle’ systems like party political systems and ‘first past the post’ and make blasted politicians work together under a system of PR.
Sorry to be curt, but ‘end of’.
I know you said end of, and you make an important point.
The German electoral system was designed to deliver what was seen as weak leadership where coalition was baked in.
What it created was a new type of politics, one where consensus and opinion building became strength. Ideas had to be tested through debate and a better society was created.
Yes they have problems, but I think it’s time to accept that if we want better politicians we need a better system for electing them and demand that they work in a more collaborative framework to achieve consensus and not ride roughshod over the will of the people who put them there.
Long term constitutional reform is going to be necessary, but the issue is how to respond to the current emergency which is the danger that FPTP will land us with a fascist government in 2029, preceded by a Reform take over of more local councils next May. I really do not want my local council to go the way of Kent County Council. I think cooperation between anti fascist parties is a good idea, although fraught with political challenges and potential friction. Otherwise we leave it to voters and information from voting comparison sites to work it out for themselves. Or we hope that the current government will have a road to Damascus moment under pressure from its members. Neither is an option I would choose to rely on. Cooperating to lock the fascists out will not be easy but worth a try.
I agree.
Compass seem to have most chance of achieving this.
I don’t understand the repeated references to Reform as a fascist party. It seems anything but to me. Yes, there’s something of a personality cult around Farage, but that’s about as far as it goes.
As I see it, Reform is simply at one end of the neoliberal spectrum that has the Tories in the middle and Starmer’s Labour at the other. It uses dog-whistle politics, pretending to address the concerns of many ordinary people (if that is a fascist trope, it is one shared by the Conservatives and Labour), in order to achieve power in advancement of its real agenda – the further enrichment of the wealthy via deregulation, regressive taxation and extreme ‘small government’. The latter is hardly fascist.
I imagine a lot of the electorate thinks “you’ve lost the argument” when they hear someone use the f word, in which case it could be badly counterproductive.
It ticks most of these:
The characteristics of fascism
Political Power and Control
Authoritarian: Power is concentrated in a leader or ruling elite who demand unquestioning obedience.
Anti democratic: Elections, rights and checks on power are dismantled or manipulated.
Totalitarian: The regime seeks to control all aspects of life, including politics, culture and belief.
Suppressive of dissent: Opposition is criminalised, silenced or violently removed.
Censorious: Free expression is restricted to ensure only the regime’s narrative prevails.
Obedience demanding: Citizens are expected to comply without criticism or independent thought.
Cult of personality-driven: The leader is presented as a heroic, infallible figure above accountability.
Propagandist: Truth is replaced with state-endorsed lies used to manipulate perception.
Conspiratorial: Imagined enemies and hidden plots are used to justify repression.
Identity, Exclusion and Violence
Racist: Certain ethnic groups are deemed superior, and others are treated as threats or even subhuman.
Xenophobic: Outsiders and migrants are portrayed as enemies of the nation.
Colonialist: Subjugation of territories and peoples is justified as national destiny.
Homophobic: LGBTQ+ people are targeted and denied equal rights and social protection.
Misogynistic: Women are subordinated, confined to gendered roles and denied equality.
Eugenicist: Purity and selective breeding are promoted to “improve” the population.
Ableist/hostile to neurodivergence: People whose minds work differently are labelled defective or dangerous, facing forced conformity or institutional exclusion.
Eliminationist: Unwanted groups are not just excluded but threatened with removal or extinction.
Violence glorifying: Brutality is celebrated as a tool to maintain dominance.
Scapegoating: Social and economic problems are blamed on minority groups to deflect responsibility.
Nation, Myth and Culture
Divisively nationalist: The nation is elevated as a sacred entity superior to all others.
Hyper-patriotic: Displays of loyalty are exaggerated and compulsory as proof of belonging.
Nostalgic for a mythical past: A fictional golden age is invoked to justify present-day oppression.
Revisionist: History is rewritten to erase crimes and glorify national greatness.
Anti-intellectual: Independent thought, science and critical scholarship are treated as threats.
Anti-pluralist: Cultural diversity and differing identities are rejected as signs of weakness.
Religiously intolerant: Anything but the supposed national religion is condemned as heretical.
Economic Structure and Social Hierarchy
Exploitative: Workers are stripped of rights and treated as instruments of the state or profit.
Belief in economic inequality: Hierarchy and privilege are seen as natural and necessary.
Corporate-aligned (crony capitalism): The state and favoured corporations collude for mutual enrichment.
I asked Copilot for a comparison rather than evidence of correlation. It’s concluding summary is reasonable I think:
“While Reform UK shares some rhetorical and ideological elements with classical fascism—particularly nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, and populist leadership—it does not advocate authoritarianism, violence, or totalitarian control, which are core features of fascist regimes.
“The label ‘fascist’ is often used rhetorically by critics to highlight perceived dangers in Reform UK’s platform, but from a political science perspective, it would be more accurate to describe the party as right-wing populist or nationalist, rather than fascist.”
You know it learns from the past, but the present, don’t you?
And your position clearly implies you are fascist inclined.
I hear your argument. In the past I have always thought it a bit juvenile when people start throwing the F.. word around. Now, I just think, certainly in the case of Trump, and increasingly his imitators here it is a frighteningly accurate description. I would rather risk looking a fool and be proved wrong once Farage is in power than not point out the dangers to democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties which Reform represents. It seems it is not just on this blog that there are concerns about Farage and fascism. Michael Heseltine no less
is talking in those terms. I think Danny Kruger inadvertently let slip the other day just how cavalier an attitude to the rule of law Reform would adopt once in power.
Thanks