What percentage of the country think pollsters get their polls right? Polling was never an exact science and, even with the development of techniques such as MRP, it never will be. Trying to arrive at an accurate picture of what the population—or a strand of it—thinks, with only a tiny sample, is full to the brim with problems. At best, polls give us snapshots and trends. But given the terror—especially for politicians—of knowing nothing, we obsess over any information we have.
One of the best pollsters, and a friend, is Peter Kellner, who on his blog for Prospect last week took some issues with the report from my organisation Compass. The report, called “Thin Ice: Why the UK’s progressive majority could stop Labour’s landslide melting away”, aimed to demonstrate that while Labour’s seat majority was huge, the way it was achieved has made Labour vulnerable. In too many seats, small movements away from Labour, both from the left and the right, could see the party losing its majority.
In particular, the report argues that there is a longstanding progressive majority in our country. Parties of the centre and centre-left won more votes than right-wing parties in every election since 1979 bar 2015, but were thwarted by both division and the first-past-the-post voting system, which skews the debate to the right. This means Labour relies on winning over disgruntled Tory voters when the Tory party is exhausted in government. Labour feels beholden to the demands of both the right-wing media and these once-in-a-blue-moon switchers, who will back Labour only if the party promises not to change very much. This creates a vicious circle, as we see now. Labour rules out, for instance, income tax increases and angers sections of voters such as pensioners and farmers with cuts and targeted tax rises. It still can’t balance the books. The Compass argument is that a commitment to proportional representation (PR) can unite the progressive vote effectively and build a platform for radical change and escaping the electoral cage.
Whether Kellner agrees with any of this I’m unsure. I know that in recent years he’s come round to backing PR, but he did take issue with some of the polling we did to show that this progressive majority backs a radical policy agenda. We asked Opinium to test a number of policy proposals on issues such as home energy efficiency, taking water into public ownership, a wealth tax, PR and a universal basic income. In all these cases there was quite reasonable net favourability amongst the public. But Kellner chides us for not asking a different question: not just whether there is support for a policy but, where appropriate, how it would be paid for. Kellner is right to make this point and commissioned his own polling to show how favourability changed when you add the cost.
So, for instance, Kellner commissioned Deltapoll to ask whether voters would support “increasing taxes to pay for every citizen to receive universal basic income”. Not surprisingly, the number drops from plus 16 net favourable on the Compass poll, to minus eight on Kellner’s. But what if Compass or Kellner had asked this question, “do you support paying for every citizen to receive a universal basic income paid for through a sovereign wealth fund?”. Of course, we would need to explain what a sovereign wealth fund was, but it could be paid for by governments simply printing more money as they in effect did during the pandemic. It could also be paid for, at least in part, through a wealth tax, which didn’t appear in Kellner’s polling set and has a favourable rating among almost 50 per cent of the public on the Compass poll.
Kellner talks about “using polls for ammunition rather than analysis”. And of course, as a campaigning organisation for a good society, Compass uses polling to make an argument. Kellner has a different job.
The point we were making, albeit not as accurately as we could, is there is electoral appetite and potential success for a political project that courts and galvanises the majority of the country who want a more equal, sustainable, and democratic future. This time around, Labour chose to court a minority. It paid off, but in ways that make it much harder next time. Our argument is that there is another choice—but it is an active choice. Labour would need to build a vision and a package of reforms, offering real change as well as a plan for how to pay for it.
We will take heed, and more care in commissioning polls. And where we really agree with Kellner is when he says to Labour and all progressives: “First work out what policies are best for the UK, regardless of what the polls say. Then, and only then, take account of what voters think—and how to win over the doubters.”
Kellner’s critique highlights the importance of a point we make in the report but maybe haven’t made enough of: the progressive majority of voters (and includes some non-voters) exists latently, and could materialise in certain moments such as elections. The provocation of “Thin Ice” is for party leaders and the general progressive left to activate this majority for the transformation of our country, by developing a bold, pluralist progressive agenda. The support of the progressive majority cannot be taken for granted and must be continually constructed—and of course, can turn against Labour if Labour ignores their desires for more equality, more power and effective action on climate.
There is a strong evidential argument, made is in “Thin Ice”, that the British electorate is more progressive than we give it credit for. Academic research, which we cite, shows that on a score of how left- or right-leaning voters are, the UK comes out as more left-wing than 14 other comparable nations, including Denmark and Sweden.
The job of pollsters is to analyse; the job of politicians and campaigners like Compass is to proselytise. We don’t think for a minute that polls or academic studies are enough, but the potential for big progressive change exists in our country. What we need are the political arguments and organisation to bring it to life. What percentage of the county would support that?
