The latest MORI poll only takes into account those who are 100% certain to vote. Would be interesting to see the figures for those simply naming a party.

That said, what are the chances of the Lib Dems overtaking Labour for 100 odd years?

That said, what are the chances of the Lib Dems overtaking Labour for 100 odd years?

I dunno – it’s a tricky one. If the Libdem base was large then they should have easily overtaken a Labour party so reviled among the electorate… and with the worst possible leader ever. And yet, despite their arguments now becoming mainstream, Libdems are barely able to match Labour. There is something unstable about that. If Labour tomorrow find a good candidate and become populist in opposition, then you might see them becoming popular again.

No wonder Gordon has suddenly discovered PR!

Going on about his “Presbyterian morals” now – what an utter utter c*** he really is.

It’s the “certains to vote” that matter btw, according to the politicalbetting.com guys.

Can’t wait for the euro results…

One note of caution: the LibDems are nowhere near the dizzy heights of the SDP when they led both major parties something 50-24-24 in December 1981. It was far from inevitable that they would go on to finish third behind Labour (and it was only 27-23 between Labour and the Alliance in 1983) but the political history to date suggests that the two major parties both retain a stronger bedrock vote in general elections – as we saw in 1983 and 1997 – and both have shown the ability to recover sufficiently from near-death experiences to make deny frequent predictions of realignment. Which is not to say that it could never happen – but I can’t see how anybody can say that they categorically can make a definitive prediction that it will (or will not) for that matter.

This short post on the broader strategy of the LibDems on Next Left seems relevant.
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/06/dilemma-for-liberal-democrats.html

The LibDems have done well in this crisis – and deservedly so to a large extent – but especially with informed and elite opinion: ie, you have to be the sort of person who is following the detail of different MPs claims to have a view that their misdemeanours of their MPs are pretty small beer; and who can tell the difference between Cameron’s rhetoric of major reforms and the proposal of significant reforms rather than trifling ones.

What we don’t know is how much that helps in ‘a plague on all their houses’ mood, and where the difference between different claims to radical reform is still very much a broadsheet-level debate, even at a much much greater salience than at any time for over a decade.

Naturally, the LibDems should and will use the fact that they can claim to be the least ‘establishment’ of the major parties.

But they can never be the most ‘outsider’ party. Rather, their distinctive argument among minor parties is that they are best placed to make change happen. Almost all of their rivals – eg UKIP – remain essentially protest parties. The LibDems are essentially a constructive, pro-politics party. (The Greens are similar in this respect, but are politically considerably weaker).

One paradox which may follow that realising the LibDem reform agenda may well ultimately depend on cooperation – at some point, in some way – with one of the other two major parties. And that is not simply because the LibDems have been the third party. I think it remains true if they were the second or even the leading party. Even in the unlikely prospect of their winning majority power alone – their strategic goal is to create a more pluralist political system which demands cooperation between parties.

There are always various pressures in political competition (especially in our current system) to articulate a reform agenda in a relatively purist way. But this seems to me to be largely an inescapable consequence of the content of the LibDem reform agenda – such as PR.

“The Sunday Telegraph poll putting Greens at 11% is significant because it’s the first time the Greens have overtaken UKIP. The national media however continues to ignore them.”

To be fair, it’s one poll, when several others have put UKIP far ahead of the Greens. If it’s true, though, I’ll be bloody delighted; I’m treating it with a pinch of salt for now, mind.

Sorry for the double post here, but my connection just started to buggering work again after I posted my last comment.

Incidentally, you left out some figures. The Greens are on 6% and UKIP on 7% in the Mori poll; 4% and 7% in YouGov; for Populus, 8% and 5%.

It should be noted again that these AREN’T European figures. For those, they’re:
ICM – Con 29%, Lab 17%, LD 20%, UKIP 10%, Green 11%, BNP 5%
YOUGOV – Con 27%, Lab 17%, LD 15%, UKIP 16%, Green 9%, BNP 7%
POPULUS – Con 30%, Lab 16%, LD 12%, UKIP 19%, Green 10%, BNP 5%

This may be why the media really aren’t paying much attention to the ICM poll.

Amazing that after all the cock ups of Brown and the wall to wall love in the media has had (from the Mail to the Guardian and the BBC ) with Cameron that they can only get 40% of the vote.

Trouble is, as long as all the liberal parties divide themselves into lots of different flavours that is all they need.

To an extent I agree with Sunder, but to answer Sunny’s point about the broad base—People have a tendency to vote for a large number of reasons.

I tend to vote both pro-Lib Dem and, traditionally, anti-Tory, for example. A lot of the anti-Tory vote is still, in most parts of the country, going to Labour. In my area, Labour gets the vote in the constituency because the MP is good, but they’ve died out in the council wards now, and the MP is standing down.

For council elections, people that vote to stop the Tories in most of the wards vote Lib Dem. But those same people will vote Labour in the General Election unless there’s a sea change in the national mood.

If they genuinely think that the Lib Dem candidate is best placed to beat the Tories, then they’ll switch. This has an added corollary.

A lot of the local Tory voters are fairly soft, fed up with Labour and voting to get them out. If they also see the Lib Dems as viable within the constiuency, they may also start to switch.

The psephology of 3-way marginals is fascinating to look at, in Scotland it can be even worse at times

There are always those who support an expressive vote, for their favoured candidate/party regardless. But studies show most voters don’t vote that way. If the polls start showing the Lib Dems consistently beating Labour, and the Euro results also see the Lib Dems beating Labour, then there’s a chance there could be a breakthrough and suddenly they’ll start getting significantly higher poll ratings.

The way voters react across the board is very volatile though. Sunder’s right to highlight the SDP poll ratings in the early 80s, but I also think that the Labour core vote has died off a lot since then—27% voted for a “truly socialist manifesto” as Benn put it, would that happen today?

Also, from what I’ve read/seen of the campaign (which is, naturally, history to me, I was 8) the SDP put up a spectacularly bad campaign in the seats they could’ve won, they concentrated almost entirely on the national debate and the media war, not much on the ground fighting, hence Thatcher got a landslide on a split vote where the SDP came 3rd in previously safe Labour seats.

My task in my area (as a branch chair) is to persuade the people that backed our council candidate to also back our PPC. That’ll need a lot of actual real hard evidence. I refuse to make up figures for bar charts, but I’ll happily use any decent evidence that’s legit.

Of course, a lot of it will also come from how many traditional Labour voters will do as a lot of Tory voters did in 1997, and simply stay at home instead.

Gah, silly auto insert smilies. I was 8, not I was 8)

@5 – The operative term in the last sentence is ‘continues’. Shouting minor bnp gains from the rooftops whilst ignoring the Greens has been going on since the last general election at least, it has nothing to do with one poll.

Thanks for the considered analysis, Sunder.

I agree with Sunder that the Lib Dems are stuck in the polls at the moment. It is difficult to post any Lib Dem argument on a populist stick to wave in front of the crowds who want to hang all MPs. Political followers appreciate that Lib Dems have been correct-ish on the electoral reforms that the UK needs, but the arguments are complex, unsexy and unlikely to attract more followers. Nick Clegg’s 100 day sitting to reform parliament was a good try, but it didn’t get anywhere with the red banner papers. That argument should be sustained, even if there are no immediate results.

Roy Hattersley’s belated conversion to PR is welcome, and I hope he generates new converts in the Labour Party. Again, it doesn’t get much attention.

However if 20 decent liberal/social democrat Labour MPs — unaffected by sleaze — defected to the Liberal Democrats, I think that the polls would be different. It would get attention that might deliver 40% in the polls. But I can’t think of five energetic liberal/social democrat Labour MPs who might defect, let alone 20.

The Guardian follows The Observer in an editorial endorsement of the LibDems for the European elections
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/02/editorial-local-european-elections

Wonder if either are particularly concerned by the repeated use of smears, misleading material and downright lies in Lib Dem election leaflets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8077101.stm
http://www.thestraightchoice.org/leaflet.php?q=186
http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/05/26/is-this-a-straight-forward-lie/
http://stuartjeffery.blogspot.com/2009/05/bizarre-lib-dem-leaflet.html
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-blogs-birthday.html (scroll down to “Why do you take such a dislike of the Lib Dems?”)

I want honest politics, not these Lib Dem lies.

It’s all well and good supporting the Lisbon Treaty but being pro-EU isn’t by itself enough to warrant an endorsement. Labour are pro-EU but both parties are weak and quiet about it.

Also, I have to say, the irony that the party most known for banging on about PR deliberately misleading voters on/conveniently forgetting how the Euro PR elections work – well, you couldn’t have made it up. Except the Lib Dems did. Has there been any serious attempt by the progressives in the Lib Dems (as opposed to the win-at-all-costs, lying-on-leaflets and libertarian sorts) to rectify this pattern of misdirection, which seems to rear itself in many local areas?

I strongly disagree with one assertion in Sunder’s otherwise excellent summary and that is his claim that the Greens are similar to the LD’s as a “constructive, pro-politics party”. They are just another protest party – anyone on the left who is thoroughly fed up with Labour can safely protest whilst maintaining their radical credentials by voting Green. They’re hardly likely to be able to do this by voting UKIP and definitely not by voting BNP. They are also unlikely to support the LD’s because if they have had any experience of canvassing for the Labour Party then they will have come across another of the LD’s less endearing aspects – their dirty fighting at a local level. Liberal Democrats have always had a very presentable national leadership but their local activists often overstep the mark of acceptable behaviour. Fortunately most people still find personal attacks off-putting in an election campaign and the tactic frequently backfires if it is not aligned to a positive political campaign – e.g.Labour’s campaign in Crewe and Nantwich.
We all want to think well of the Greens but as soon as they get any real exposure they can’t resist shooting themselves in the foot.

Rayyan, FWIW, I do the leaflets for my branch and help out for my constituency, and I try to make sure any claim, especially voting figures claim, is accurate and backed up. Some of the stories about dodgy bar charts are hyperbole (and some of the London MPs have been delivering their normal quarterly leaflet alongside Euro stuff and getting attacked for talking about their constituency), but a lot of it isn’t, and I personally dislike that sort of dishonest campaigning.

However, having seen dodgy leaflets locally from Labour, and read letters to my local paper from the lead Green candidate claiming credit for anything and everything that’s been implemented in the whole region, it’s not just the party I joined that has a track record of being economical with the truth on leaflets.

One of the daftest things about the Lib Dems generally is that they’ve consistently argued for electoral reform (and the last Liberal house of Commons voted for STV but got blocked by the Lords), they’re really crap at PR elections—that’s partially, of course, because they’re very used to concentrating the very small number of resources they’ve got in the areas they feel they can do well in at local or constituency level, whereas PR elections need a better media campaign.

One thing I really like about Clegg’s leadership is his move to make the Europe campaign actually be about European issues, that’s not happened before, and it always annoyed me.