Third of Labour voters could vote for Corbyn party
Thirty-one per cent of people who backed Sir Keir Starmer's party at the general election last year said they are open to switching their support to a new group led by the former Labour party leader.
Last week Mr Corbyn and Zarah Sultana confirmed their involvement in a new hard-Left party that plans to fight Labour.
YouGov asked 2,000 British adults how likely they were on a scale of one to 10 to vote for a new party led by Mr Corbyn.
Out of the Labour voters surveyed, 31 per cent gave a response of at least six out of 10, while 40 per cent indicated they were willing to consider voting for the Green Party.
A further 12 per cent said they would consider voting for Nigel Farage's Reform UK, a sign that Sir Keir is losing votes on both the Left and Right.
Among voters for all parties, 18 per cent said they would consider voting for a new party led by Mr Corbyn.
The findings are a further blow for Sir Keir, who has seen Labour's poll lead evaporate since the general election and the popularity of his Government sink to historic lows one year after taking office.
Reform is currently leading in the polls, and the YouGov survey will add to fears in Labour circles that division among voters on the Left would help Mr Farage secure victory at the next general election.
Mr Corbyn, the MP of Islington North, led Labour between 2015 and 2020 and was in charge of the party during the 2017 and 2019 general elections.
Labour won 40 per cent of the popular vote in 2017 and forced a hung Parliament after the dramatic collapse of the Conservative campaign under Baroness May.
Two years later, however, Labour slumped to its worst electoral defeat since 1935 as it was reduced to just over 200 seats and Boris Johnson secured a landslide Tory majority.
Corbyn targets Streeting's constituency
Mr Corbyn sits as an independent MP after being exiled from Labour in 2020. Ms Sultana lost the Labour whip last year after rebelling against Sir Keir's decision to keep the two-child benefit cap.
The two MPs are significantly to the Left of their former party on issues including welfare cuts, tax rises and the conflict in the Middle East.
Their new party plans to target Labour big beasts, and Mr Corbyn held an event in Ilford North – the constituency narrowly held by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary – hours after the new party was announced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. Johnson's oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is once again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. In the US, the parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi – there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for critics of Farage. US pro-democracy campaigners warn that Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation tactics. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggested this was the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further compounding the problem in the US has been Trump's appointments of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories, Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, putting him in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak. Yet that does not make the problems insurmountable, campaigners insist. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'
Scotsman
30 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How Labour minister's attack on quality of Scotland's water backfired badly
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Westminster went into recess this week, a time of year when MPs can take a breath, undertake summer surgery tours and constituency visits, and generally catch up with work back home that can be difficult with the weekly commute to London. It is also historically when we enter what is known as 'silly season', described in the Collins dictionary as 'the time around August when the newspapers are full of unimportant or silly news stories because there is not much political news to report'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This week it arrived a few days early as a Labour Cabinet minister sought to make the case against water nationalisation using inaccurate figures about Scottish water quality. A Labour politician, Environment Secretary Steve Reed no less, arguing against a successfully nationalised public utility and showing a courageous streak by criticising Scots over the quality of their tap water. Just 16 per cent of England's water bodies are in good ecological status, compared to 66 per cent in Scotland (Picture: Christopher Furlong) | Getty Images Swimming in sewage Now, there are times, when stories that the political bubble, politicians and journalists alike, think are terribly serious fail to capture the public imagination. The quality of Scotland's water is not one of them. People in Scotland, of all political persuasions and none, take some pride in the quality of Scotland's water – not least those of us who drink London tap water during our weekly London commute! The Secretary of State was swimming in sewage of his own making and gave Scottish Government Cabinet minister Gillian Martin ample opportunity to rebut his claims in a pointed letter. Sixty-six per cent of Scotland's water bodies are of good ecological status compared to 16 per cent in England and 29 per cent in Wales. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Whilst there is always more that can be done and Scottish ministers are right to focus on areas for which they have responsibility, Scottish water is improving with 87 per cent assessed as 'clean or good', up from 82 per cent in 2014. There is always work to be done in Scotland, and in fairness Scottish ministers have the benefit of being answerable to the public rather than shareholders, but nonetheless the intervention was 'courageous' by the British minister. £78bn in shareholder dividends A recent report by the UK Environment Agency showed serious pollution incidents in England were up 60 per cent compared to the previous year with 'consistently poor performance from all nine water and sewage companies' in England. The Environment Agency put this down to 'persistent underinvestment in new infrastructure, poor asset maintenance and reduced resilience due to the impacts of climate'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Secretary of State even conceded on Sky News this week that most of the £104 billion investment needed in the water industry in England would have to be paid back by bill payers. What's more, since privatisation by the Tories in the 1990s, water companies have paid out £78bn in dividends and millions in bonuses to water company bosses, a system that a Labour minister was now seeking to defend. One might say that the UK Government has found itself up a rather polluted creek without a paddle. No wonder so few voices are calling for Scottish water to be privatised given the unfolding disaster south of the Border. Bill payers in Scotland gain from successive devolved administrations managing water better. Since 2010 for instance, average charges to Scottish customers have reduced by over 10 per cent with average prices significantly lower than in England and Wales. Given all of this you might have expected the Secretary of State to be more focused on keeping to past Labour commitments that might help voters down south. In the 2020 Labour leadership race, one of Keir Starmer's ten key pledges was to 'support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water'. That commitment appears to have been one of many dropped by Labour in office. Scottish Labour's favourite tactic Labour finds itself politically rudderless in stormy waters, pun absolutely intended. No wonder, the party has won power and doesn't know what to do with it. The Secretary of State was left gasping, a fish out of water. When he was interviewed, unable to defend his own record, he did what Labour MPs are getting rather good at, talk about something else entirely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's a favoured tactic of Scottish Labour MPs to talk about anything but their own Westminster government. At the most recent Scotland Office question time, supposed to be Scotland's voice in the UK Government, only my Dundee colleague Chris Law and I seemed to be bothered to ask about issues pertinent to the UK Government. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up to talk about the Scottish Government, telling us something of who is setting the policy agenda – and it isn't this Labour administration. The lack of Labour MPs' curiosity about the work of their own government and the Secretary of State's brazen deflection tells us of a Westminster government and UK ruling party without much of a political compass, holed below the water line by their own lack of purpose. My experience of speaking to voters tells me that people want to know what you are for, rather than what you are against. Even where voters disagree with you, and plenty do, they respect parties who are clear on their beliefs. Things could always be better and Scottish ministers should continue to keep up their work to ensure that Scottish water is cheaper, less polluted and more sustainable than elsewhere. The same goes the other way, and given the state of England's waters maybe, just maybe, Labour ministers could do with focusing on areas over which they have responsibility. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Water is a precious commodity, and it has rightly grabbed a bit of attention this week. It's certainly more deserving than this week's early silly season but we shouldn't let that wander into September. Time for some serious politics about a serious resource – time for Labour ministers to focus on the day job?
