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

[ProudAmberTurtle]

This is a new IPSOS poll. It finds that among the least well off in society, support for Labour has collapsed - it's now just 10%.

Even among people who are 'just about coping' financially, they're a distant fourth in the polls, and would be wiped out if it was just them voting.

But - here's what might be surprising - among wealthy people they are first in the polls, in fact their lead is so big that if only rich people could vote, it would be a landslide for Labour.

Any thoughts as to why it is now that only the most privileged people in society are voting Labour?

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2026-04/Ipsos%20Apr%202026_Political%20Monitor%20charts_Public.pdf

Dons hard hat

It's because they are well educated and able to understand the consequences of what they vote for.

Awaits a flaming

At least you're explicitly saying what others on this thread are trying to say without actually saying it.

Do you think poorer people shouldn't be allowed to vote, as they don't understand the consequences of their actions?

That would not be considered 'comfortably off' by most people.

The survey asked people themselves to decide their category.
This is your definition, not that of the people who completed took part in the poll.

This is your definition.

The poll asked people to describe themselves so the results are based on their subjective summary.

The poll results are meaningless then aren't they.

Whilst I don’t actually disagree with this, it’s important to recognise that being able to consider the needs of those less fortunate is privilege in itself. I can take time to consider the situation of those less well off or less physically or cognitively able than me because my entire headspace is not taken up with worry over feeding my kids or trying to function with a disability or disabled family member.

Also, I should have added that we must be careful not to conflate education with intelligence.

Which is all well and good but it's not how the definitions on this poll were set up.

Also, evidence on MN recently proved that a lot of people who many of us would consider very comfortably off worried about paying school fees.

Blimey PAT, do you ever have a break from posting anti-Labour stuff? You should relax a bit, they are going to get hammered on Thursday.

No, I think that government should be responsible for ensuring that the population has access to education that helps them to make these choices. Unfortunately it benefits certain parties if the population is not educated.

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

Yes. This is so right.

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.

'More people should go to university because people who go to university come out of it voting Labour' is not a terribly persuasive argument.

For one thing, try going on any campus and say men can not become women.

Working class people are far more likely to have to live with the consequences of immigration than comfortably off people

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

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.

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

I agree

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.