New poll finds only privileged people will vote for Labour - but why?

It's because listening to London-based politicians who represent a London consituency and have barely left London for 30 years feels ridiculous if you live outside London and the home counties. Too few decision-makers have any real idea of what life is like in a left-behind region where there are almost no jobs going, where there is little to no public transport, whence a peak train into London costs £80 a pop. Rural poverty is very different to urban poverty and social mobility is much lower in rural areas. Farage and his ilk know this and predate upon it.

The poll is saying that people who feel worried about money are going to vote for something different than the party currently in power. Nothing odd about that. Presumably they are hoping that a change will improve things. That was the case at the last election too and why Labour got in.
I don't think that equates to "only priviledged people vote Labour."
I do think in general that people care about local stuff affecting their own families and communities, eg potholes, prices, crime, access to doctors etc, far more than the Westminster village type stuff that the media seems to focus on (Mandelson scandal, Starmer has to go etc). If potholes, cost of living, and doctors appointments were sorted the fringe parties wouldn't have a chance.

It becomes a class thing if you create a dichotomy between "educated" and "uneducated", when in fact it's more about whether you have enough relevant knowledge. A neurosurgeon, a PhD scientist, and an architect are all highly educated but not in areas which would equip them to make better political/voting decisions than other reasonably intelligent people with a lower level of education.

Your uncle in the pub in Hull might have self reported in this poll as "comfortably off".

But the OP of this thread has decided to redefine that as "privileged".

Indeed, your Hull uncle might have benefited from labour policy that he can spend time in the pub.

Which is precisely why I, holding a PhD, and my equally well-educated DH are voting for whoever in our ward is going to get rid of Labour. We fall into the category of well-educated financially secure and have both been not only active in the Labour Party for several decades, but have stood and served as LP councillors. But we see the rot now with anyone who had principles being deselected or kicked out. All that is left are unprincipled career politicians at both local and national level, who say anything, do anything, promise the earth in order to remain in power. I'm politically homeless right now, but I'm dead certain that Labour is not "better" than any thing else on offer. And I'm looking forward to them being booted out of running my local council and come the GE, my current MP looking for another job.

"Self-reported financial situation" will skew it, surely? I've known people living mortgage-free with a six-figure household income who acted like they were about to go off a cliff...

It's the same in the US with the Democrats they are voted for by the 'coastal elite' while the working classes vote for Trump.
Hilary Clinton called the working classes a 'basket of deplorables' and Labour has moved away from wanting to represent the origional working class white communities that it represented. A Labour voter is more likely to be an Emily Maiiliss type than my uncle in the local pub in Hull.

Only people who have surplus money can afford to be altruistic and happy to handover money that they could use for their own kids to other people’s.

The people that are actually benefitting from Labour are too busy getting upset about immigrants 🤷‍♀️.

Because Labour are the new Conservatives?

You can't tell that from the data in that report.

Why? Because wealthy people have savings and trust funds, and can sit through Labour's disastrous economic policies without any inconvenience to themselves.
Because they can afford higher food prices, fluctuating mortgage rates and vat on their child's education.
They can buy their children houses and pay their university fees.
And they'll be there to take advantage as those who are struggling, go under.

Do you imagine Blair's children have student debt or mortgages?

"More people should have access to a broad range of education opportunities so that they are able to apply critical thinking skills in all walks of life, including at the ballot box" is a pretty compelling argument.

But as you are one of these who likes to crow bar the trans issue into every argument I'm not sure it's worth engaging with you further.

Or, because working class people have been groomed by the far right into believing that stopping immigration would suddenly transform the country into some sort of land of milk and honey. Like Brexit, if anyone did it, it would cause more problems than it solves. But the far right know that if you're at the bottom of the heap, it's nice to have someone easily identifiable to blame for your woes and demonise.

It's not meaningless at all. The pollsters have taken care to define the categories and explain them. It's up to the reader really to understand them. Or try to in my case.

The OP said "privileged' instead of "comfortably off". That is the OP changing it. And it seems other people are picking up on that change and making it about class. And others about education.

But the poll is not saying that. The poll is clear where it states, "People can move in and out of these conditions as their financial situation and/or their outlook change."

I also just noticed. The poll is from Nov 2025.

From my point of view, what I would find interesting is what % of the population self report as, in these categories over time. This is just a snapshot. Ipsos say in this report that they have been tracking this since 2022. So what are the % changes over that time. Are labour voters felling more or less financially secure over time.

It is the OP potentially misrepresenting what the poll says by re-wording what the categories are.

Are you a communist looking for a fight? Because you read like an undergraduate with a lot of no experience.

The poll is not meaningless but it's highlighting something different from what op is saying.

It's linking who people are voting for based on whether they're worried about money.

People who are more worried about their money are generally voting for Reform or Green.
People who are less worried about their money are slightly more likely to vote Labour.
Conservative voters are spread equally between the worried and unworried.

As others on this thread have said, you could be worried about money because you've just tipped over the 100k childcare grant threshold and have a big mortgage to pay. Conversely you could feel comfortable and unworried if you have a steady UC income with rent covered. And obviously vice versa too.

Crucially though it somewhat shows that Labour policies aren't reassuring for people worried about their finances.

I agree

That isn't what the poster said just like your original post and title aren't what the report said.

I think as well as educating the electorate we also need to identify, support and put forward, much, much higher quality candidates to stand for election. I'm not sure how we do this but we need a better calibre of candidates than those we are currently presented with.

We've already established its subjective and there meaningless - far too many potential sources of bias to be reliable.

What one would be considered "comfortably off" ?

One could be a grad with a specialist degree struggling to find work while they have 60k of student loans. The other might be a family in a council house, all on low wages who have a relative with a caravan at Skegness that they get for holidays.

The poll is self reported. It is subjective.

Yes. This is so right.

Because many working class people care more about immigration than the benefits labour offer them.