Rishi Sunak is failing to hold together the voting coalition that delivered Boris Johnson a decisive victory in the 2019 general election, according to The Voters Panel on Sky News – launched today.
A profound unhappiness with the state of the country and exhaustion at years of Tory chaos means 2019 Tory voters will flock to at least four rival parties or stay at home at the next election.
Some describe themselves as swing voters, while others say they have backed the Tories all their lives, and this is the group Conservative headquarters and campaign chief Isaac Levido believes is key to the next election.
We found just over a fifth of Tory voters will switch directly to Labour and there is a grasp of what Labour stands for among participants in The Voters Panel, the Sky News-YouGov digital community group launched today reveals.
Image: Pic: PA
However, the depth of despair in the governing party means the relationship between the party and many voters has shattered and they are looking for a new home.
For the next two weeks, including through the budget next Wednesday, Sky News will be regularly interrogating The Voters Panel – an online group of at least 33 people from all corners of Great Britain.
Of the 33 submitting answers so far, nine say they will likely stick with the Conservatives, seven will go to Labour, five to Reform, two to the Lib Dems and one to Green.
Eight say they aren’t sure, although three of these rule out voting Conservative. This echoes the latest polls.
Advertisement
The last YouGov voting poll suggested of those who voted Tory in 2019, 33% would stick with the party, 20% would switch to Reform, 13% to Labour, 3% to Lib Dem and 1% would go to the Green Party.
Some 29% say they don’t know or would not vote. This suggests that The Voters Panel looks very reflective of the national picture and will be used in the coming days to dig much deeper into voters’ views.
Image: Here are the words people used to described Rishi Sunak – the bigger they are, the more commonly used they were
The headlines, drawn from dozens of videos and written exercises by the panel of 2019 Tory voters since Friday, include:
• A despair at the state of public services. Katrin, who will vote anyone but Tory next time, says schools are “struggling”, the NHS is “underfunded” and needs a cash injection and the economy is “failing”.
Helen, who is unsure where to take her vote now, says: “I am quite worried about the state of the country at the moment. It’s not just me that I need to think about, I’ve also got two young children.”
Michael, who will stick with the Tories, says: “The government doesn’t seem willing to back down to the doctors to give them a decent pay rise.”
Image: Michael says the government seems to be unwilling to give doctors a ‘decent pay rise’
• Concern about the cost of living isn’t matched by demands for tax cuts. Several of The Voters Panel have brought up the cost of living, and the pressures this brings, although there is an appreciation this is in part the consequence of COVID and the war in Ukraine – both out of the government’s control. However, this does not translate into spontaneous demands for tax cuts, beyond a tiny number of people already sticking with the Tories.
• There is a desire to punish the Tories. The anger felt towards the political chaos of recent years does not appear to have softened and was brought up spontaneously by a majority of panellists. Snezzana says the party she voted for in the last election is “destroying the country and the economy” and she will switch to Labour.
Image: Snezzana says the Tories are “destroying the country and the economy” and she will switch to Labour.
Paul, who will switch to the Greens, won’t back the Tories again after the “chaos since Boris was in charge”. Jyoti will not vote Tory again “because Brexit and COVID were all disasters” and while more recently unlikely to back Labour, could go to either end of the political spectrum and back Reform or Lib Dem.
• There is uncertainty about Sir Keir Starmer and Labour. Emma, who doesn’t know how to vote next time, says: “Starmer is someone that sits on the fence quite a lot.” Tom – who says he will vote Labour – says Sir Keir has moved Labour to the centre but “is not a 100% sure on what their manifesto will contain”, adding: “Is he a capable leader? I don’t know, we’ll find out.”
• Sir Keir is “indecisive” and “unbelievable”. Mr Sunak “rich” “unelected and “untrustworthy”. The words used to describe the leaders of the two main parties are largely unforgiving by our participants. Mr Sunak is also weak, disconnected; though seen as competent and intelligent. Sir Keir is known to be a lawyer but “hypocrite” looms large.
• Some, but not many, key messages from the parties, are getting through. David, who is switching to Labour, is one of the few to acknowledge Sir Keir “from a not-as-well-off background. He’s had family problems”.
Paul, who is sticking with the Tories, mimicked Mr Sunak’s slogan by saying “My worry is now…. the Labour Party will get in and we’ll be back to square one” and says “we need to stick with them, see this plan through”.
Image: David will switch to Labour
• Not everybody thinks it’s ‘time for a change’. After 14 years, a minority think that it is not time for a change. All three who suggest this are sticking with the Tories.
• Cut-through moments matter. Widely shared moments on social media are shaping perceptions. Paul, who will vote for the Greens, referenced the bet between Mr Sunak and Piers Morgan as evidence of Mr Sunak’s wealth, suggesting it means he is “obviously rich and I think that puts him a bit out of touch with people. The recent interview where he bet the interviewer a thousand pounds, was a bit not nice to see. Makes him out of touch, especially when people are going paycheck to paycheck”.
The results of this community group – with so few directly switching Tory to Labour – may lead some Tory supporters to conclude that the next election is not lost, arguing Labour has not sealed the deal with the electorate. There are some glimmers of hope for the Tories. However, direct Tory-to-Labour switching may not be the decisive factor in the result.
The 1997 Labour landslide was driven, in part, by Tories staying at home rather than a surge of enthusiasm for Tony Blair.
Image: Here is a similar so-called ‘word cloud’ for Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
In 1992, John Major got more votes than any leader at any election ever and a big drop in turnout – from 77.7% to 71.3% in 1997 – was a big part of Blair’s 179 majority. Jeremy Corbyn lost almost 3 million votes between 2017 and 2019, and that was instrumental in the Tory majority of 80.
This community group still suggests less than a third of Conservative voters would stick with the Tories in an upcoming election. This remains an existential challenge for the prime minister.
United Kingdom regulators are increasingly concerned about the impact of stablecoins and the broader crypto industry on the country’s financial system and monetary stability.
During Financial Policy Committee meetings held on April 4 and 8, regulators noted that while the current “interconnectedness of unbacked crypto asset markets with the real economy and financial sector is growing but remains relatively limited,” stablecoins and crypto markets have expanded significantly in the past year, drawing heightened regulatory attention.
The UK, its central bank and its local regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, have been developing frameworks for stablecoins to ensure financial resilience. The committee claims to have determined the factors that make a stablecoin resilient:
“A key determinant of the resilience of stablecoins was the liquidity, credit and market risks of their backing assets, which were in place to ensure that redemptions can be met in a timely manner at par, even in periods of stress.“
The committee raised alarm over the “greater issuance of sterling offshore stablecoins with inappropriate backing assets.” This has implications for UK financial markets and “even with appropriate regulation, greater use of stablecoins denominated in foreign currencies could make some economies vulnerable to currency substitution,” the committee said.
Committee members are worried that if stablecoin use were to move beyond crypto settlements, it could result in “implications for retail and wholesale cross-border payments.” In retail flows, stablecoin use by households and small and medium-sized enterprises could, for cross-border payments, “result in currency substitution,” increasing counterparty risk.
The statement followed reports about growing stablecoin adoption not limited to crypto remittances in emerging markets, especially in Africa. A recent report from Chainalysis found that stablecoins now make up nearly half of all transaction volume in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Similarly, a late 2024 report suggested that a number of emerging economies across Africa have the potential to become digital asset hubs. Ben Caselin, chief marketing officer of Johannesburg-based crypto exchange VALR, told Cointelegraph at the time:
“South Africa is the entryway to the rest of Africa with a good rule of law and independent judiciary. It’s easy to open a company in South Africa.”
Still, reports of similar trends in developed economies with easily accessible financial infrastructure are scarce. Experts often point to the unavailability of banking services and unstable local fiat currencies as the reason why developing countries — from Africa in particular — are eager to adopt dollar-based stablecoins and crypto.
The United Kingdom is in good company in worrying about the impact of stablecoins and the broader crypto industry on monetary stability. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recently warned that crypto will increasingly threaten traditional financial markets’ stability as the industry grows and becomes more entwined with conventional finance players. ESMA’s executive director, Natasha Cazenave said:
“We cannot rule out that future sharp drops in crypto prices could have knock-on effects on our financial system.”
Local regulators are already acting on those concerns. In late March, the European Union’s insurance authority proposed a blanket rule that would mandate insurance firms to maintain capital equal to the value of their crypto holdings as part of a measure to mitigate risks for policyholders.
The home secretary has denied the government is watering down its response to child grooming gangs after it was accused of dropping plans for local inquiries.
Yvette Cooper announced at the beginning of the year that “victim-centred, locally-led inquiries” would take place in five areas after the issue caught the attention of tech billionaire Elon Musk.
But this week, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips did not provide an update on the reviews and instead said local authorities would be able to access a £5m fund to support any work they wanted to carry out.
Her statement led to accusations that the government was diluting the importance of the local inquiries by giving councils the choice over how to spend the money.
Asked by Anna Jones on Sky News whether the government was “watering down” its response, Ms Cooper said: “No, completely the opposite.
“What we’re doing is increasing the action we’re taking on this vile crime.”
More on Yvette Cooper
Related Topics:
The home secretary pointed to the rapid audit that is being carried out by Baroness Louise Casey, which will bring together the data gathered so far on grooming gangs and consider the lessons that should be learned at a national level.
She added: “Most important of all, what we’re doing is we’re increasing the police investigations, because these are dangerous perpetrators and again, they should be behind bars.”
Image: Elon Musk has been critical of Labour’s response to grooming gangs and has called for a national inquiry.
Demands for a national inquiry into the scandal – in which girls as young as 11 were groomed and raped across a number of towns and cities in England over a decade ago – grew louder this year after Mr Musk accused Labour of failing to act on the issue on his social media platform X.
The government refused to hold a national inquiry, citing the work carried out by Professor Alexis Jay, who led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abusethat looked into abuse by organised groups following multiple convictions of sexual offences against children across the UK between 2010-2014.
However, it did commit to holding local inquiries in five areas backed by £5m in funding and advised by Tom Crowther KC.
‘Political mess’
But ministers are facing a backlash following Ms Phillips’ statement in the Commons on Tuesday – made an hour before parliament rose for Easter recess – in which she said the government would take a “flexible approach” by allowing five councils to launch victims’ panels or locally led audits.
Labour MPs angry with government decision grooming gangs
With about an hour until the House of Commons rose for Easter recess, the government announced it was taking a more “flexible” approach to the local grooming gang inquiries.
Safeguarding minister Jess Philips argued this was based on experience from certain affected areas, and that the government is funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases.
Sky News presenter and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Philips called the move “utterly shameful” and claimed it was a political decision.
One Labour MP told Sky News: “Some people are very angry. I despair. I don’t disagree with many of our decisions but we just play to Reform – someone somewhere needs sacking.”
The government insists party political misinformation is fanning the flames of frustration in Labour, and that they not watering down the inquiries – on the contrary, they say are increasing the action being taken – , but while many Labour MPs have one eye on Reform in the rearview mirror, any accusations of being soft on grooming gangs only provides political ammunition to their adversaries.
One Labour MP told Sky News the issue had turned into a “political mess” and that they were being called “grooming sympathisers”.
On the update from Ms Phillips on Tuesday, they said it might have been the “right thing to do” but that it was “horrible politically”.
“We are all getting so much abuse. It’s just political naivety in the extreme.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said yesterday that she was “absolutely astonished that Labour has dropped what it said it would do in January”.
“They are clearly uncomfortable with having inquiries that are looking into this issue,”she said.
“They said that they’ll have a pot of money for councils to bid in, but why would a council bid for money to investigate itself?
“We need something that is national. We need a statutory inquiry so we can compel witnesses, and I’m going to make sure that we force another vote.”
‘We will leave no stone unturned’
Ms Phillips later defended her decision, saying there was “far too much party political misinformation about the action that is being taken when everyone should be trying to support victims and survivors”.
“We are funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases, providing national support for locally led inquiries and action, and Louise Casey… is currently reviewing the nature, scale and ethnicity of grooming gangs offending across the country.
“We will not hesitate to go further, unlike the previous government, who showed no interest in this issue over 14 years and did nothing to progress the recommendations from the seven year national inquiry when they had the chance.
“We will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of justice for victims and will be unrelenting in our crackdown on sick predators and perpetrators who prey on vulnerable children.”
Non-fungible token marketplace OpenSea has urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission to exclude NFT marketplaces from regulation under federal securities laws.
The SEC needs to “clearly state that NFT marketplaces like OpenSea do not qualify as exchanges under federal securities laws,” OpenSea general counsel Adele Faure and deputy general counsel Laura Brookover said in an April 9 letter to Commissioner Hester Peirce, who leads the agency’s Crypto Task Force.
Faure and Brookover argued that NFT marketplaces don’t meet the legal definition of an exchange under US securities laws as they don’t execute transactions, act as intermediaries or bring together multiple sellers for the same asset.
“The Commission’s past enforcement agenda has created uncertainty. We therefore urge the Commission to remove this uncertainty and protect the ability of US technology companies to lead in this space,” Faure and Brookover wrote.
OpenSea’s legal team has asked the SEC to issue informal guidance on NFT Marketplaces. Source: SEC
“In preparing this guidance, the Crypto Task Force should specifically address the application of exchange regulations to marketplaces for non-fungible assets, similar to the recent staff statements on memecoins and stablecoins,” Faure and Brookover added.
Under a notice published on April 4, the SEC said stablecoins that meet specific criteria are considered “non-securities” and are exempt from transaction reporting requirements.
Meanwhile, the SEC’s division of corporation finance said in a Feb. 27 staff statement that memecoins are not securities under the federal securities laws but are more akin to collectibles.
NFT marketplaces don’t fit broker definition, says OpenSea
Faure and Brookover argued the Crypto Task Force should also exempt NFT marketplaces like OpenSea from having to register as a broker, arguing they don’t give investment advice, execute transactions, or custody customer assets.
“We ask the SEC to clear the existing industry confusion on this issue by publishing informal guidance. In the longer term, we invite the Commission to exempt NFT marketplaces like OpenSea from proposed broker regulation,” they said.