Can we have a link(s) please?

People support the coalition on the economy?

Will be interesting to see if people think the same this time next year…

(BTW, is it technically possible to be less popular than Nick Clegg?)

Now updated with links.

Only 28% of all voters, and just 45% of Labour supporters, think Miliband is doing a good job. His net negative is -21, down eight points since March. His rating is one point worse than Clegg’s and 16 points worse than Cameron’s. The Labour leader seems notably unpopular among older voters and men. His popularity ratings now resemble those of Iain Duncan Smith when he was leader of the opposition, and Miliband’s rating is notably worse than those of William Hague or Michael Howard as opposition leaders.

Ouch.

Obviously Miliband’s -8 drop since March is a result of his not understanding what the ordinary man in the street wants and Cameron’s -10 drop since March is a result of his decisive leadership in making unpopular choices.

Or vice versa, if you prefer.

The important thing is, do we completely eradicate Nick Clegg, or keep some samples in laboratories just in case?

@5 Completely eradicate.

I wonder where all those LD “bittereinders” have disappeared to recently…?

You know the ones… the ones who were soooooo convinced that there was no alternative, and that the sky would fall down if they didn’t grab their ankles for the Tories?

I wonder if perhaps some of them look back and wonder where the LD’s would be in the polls now if they had let the Tories form a minority administration?

I wonder where all those LD “bittereinders” have disappeared to recently…?

12% of the electorate apparently.

@ 8

Hmmnn… well granted they have dimished to a bit of a rump, but I was thinking more of the vocal “continuity LD’s”, who were so convinced that there was no other way. I suspect that even within the 12% there are a large number who are horrified by what has become of their party…. obviously most of those on the centre left have already jumped ship.

@8

Having checked the UK Polling Report, your 12% is almost certainly an overstatement; only ICM has them on that, all the other polling organisations have them on 9%.

10 – Gold Standard m’boy, as Mike Smithson would say. ICM are much more accurate (especially when it comes to the Lib Dems) than the other pollsters.

But anyway, 9%, 12% whichever. It’s all a bit bleak for the poor dears.

To win general elections, leaders and parfties do not have to be particularly popular. They just have to be less unpopular than their main oponents. Most of the people who vote Labour will do so to get or keep the Tories out rather than because they particularly like Labour and vica versa.

Lib Dem poll numbers normally slump between elections. A six point lead is pathetic at this stage of the cycle. During a GE voters will focus on the leaders. Neil Kinnock had some pretty hefty mid-term poll leads, but if the public doesn’t buy the idea of you as PM then you’re toast. If this hasn’t improved by this time next year he’ll need to walk.

@ Galen10

“I wonder if perhaps some of them look back and wonder where the LD’s would be in the polls now if they had let the Tories form a minority administration?”

Better off, almost certainly. But there’s benefit of hindsight going on there – they didn’t know then that they’d lose the AV vote. And I really do think we’d have had some problems if no two parties had enough common ground and enough MPs to form a majority in the commons.

Ed M did’nt kill a kid, just the idea that he understood the working class. All we’ve heard so far is some guff about the ‘squeezed middle’ and how he wants to be ‘our voice’. Yes Ed, that would be nice. But you do’nt seem to get the point, we do’nt want you to speak up for us, we want you to get stuck in to the coalition and fucking tear ’em a new one. I do’nt believe for one second that he’s less popular than Clegg, but polls and surveys are only a sample opinion, to be taken with a pinch of salt. Ed may be having trouble connecting with people, but people are in no doubt about Judas of Sheffield, they all want to connect with his skull, using a heavy object. Boring is a word used to describe Ed quite a lot, because he does come across as Mr. Safe and sound, no edge to his personality(not that any of them are blessed with a sparkling personality) but Clegg has made enemies of people who never even knew he existed. He sold out his party, his voters, especially the youth vote he so desperately wanted and got, and worst of all he sold his soul to the devil, in exchange for a meaningless title and a nice big car.

@7. Galen10: “I wonder where all those LD “bittereinders” have disappeared to recently…?”

I am still here and thinking and talking. Not because I believe in an ideology, but ‘cos I think it is worth talking to people.

@14 Chaise

” But there’s benefit of hindsight going on there – they didn’t know then that they’d lose the AV vote.”

Well, it isn’t just hindsight though is it? Many of us predicted what a disaster it would be for them, and as I recall were roundly condemned by many LD’s (and others at the time) for being unrealistic. So the charge of being wise after the event doesn’t quite cut it I’m afraid.

As for the AV vote, I suspect they did genuinely beleive that they would win it, but that was before a huge section of their left of centre support defected, people relaised what a crap system it was, and also began to see that they had sold themselves short in the Coalition deal. Again, all of these were widely predicted.

“And I really do think we’d have had some problems if no two parties had enough common ground and enough MPs to form a majority in the commons.”

Possibly…but I somehow doubt the sky would have fallen. It is of course just as arguable that a minority Tory administration would have been better all round. Even from a selfish LD point of view, it would have been preferable. I’m a tad suspicious of LD claims “post hoc” that they have sacrificed themselves altruistically for the good of the country. By misplaying their hand in the five days of May last year they not only signed their own death warrant, they damaged the prospects of achieving electoral reform, and threw a lifeline to New Labour.

@16 Charlieman

..how’s that decision last May looking to you now?

Still think it was a great idea?

Better off, almost certainly.

Wiped out in the second election in September 2010, when the Tories, still in their honeymoon period, went to the country asking for a proper mandate.

@19 Tim J

“Wiped out in the second election in September 2010, when the Tories, still in their honeymoon period, went to the country asking for a proper mandate.”

Dream on! That’s about as likely as Ed Miliband discovering some charisma. It is just as likely that the LD’s could have capitalised on Tory weakness as a minority government, without the toxic effects of being seen as Cameron’s “human shield”, and without losing the support of the vast numbers of left of centre voters who have deserted them since May 2010.

I think you’re kidding yourself if you think the Cameroons would have had a honeymoon period….. given that they failed to win outright, the knives would ave been out for him.

Ed Milliband’s unpopularity stems from the fact that he is connected with an unpopular Party who have lost all sense of direction. It is difficult to see what Labour actually stands for right now. Looking round at Labour officials, it appears that too many of them have nothing of value to add to anything.

We have seen the Phillip Davis incident as a microcosm of the Labour Party’s collective inability to make a decision on anything. Far too much reliance on what the papers say, what bloggers might think or what ‘Blue Labour’ focus groups may report back. We have heard a few mutterings over the airwaves, but especially nothing from the either the front or backbenches of any real substance. I get the distinct impression that no-one wants to say anything until the dust has settled and the public opinion can be deciphered. It seems that ‘Blue Labour’ wants to be on the coattails of the Tory vanguard. They know they need to retain the support of the outraged half of the debate, yet they think they also require votes from those who support Davis too. Of course they end up satifying neither.

Labour appear to me at least to be unsure of where they stand on moral issues, far less political ones, so is it any wonder that are getting nowhere. If Milliband wants to be popular, he needs to pick a side of the debate and go for it. Get his message out there and instead of trying to pick up on every nuance of debate with Cameron and attempting to trip him up at every minor policy detail, why not actually stand for something and make the case for it? Perhaps it would rub of on your colleagues?

I think you’re kidding yourself if you think the Cameroons would have had a honeymoon period….. given that they failed to win outright, the knives would ave been out for him.

Once Cameron made the offer of a full coalition to the Lib Dems, then the LDs really had little choice. If they’d turned it down, then Cameron would have tried to run a minority administration. They don’t last long, because the Govt is always looking for the first reasonable time to go to the country. New Govts always have some form of honeymoon, and it’s unlikely that a minority Tory Govt would be different.

You then get yourself to September. Labour are broke, and either have no leader at all, or Gordon Brown in caretaker mode. The Lib Dems are broke, have lost seats, and have just explicitly disavowed their entire credo for a third party. Who wins in that scenario?

@21 Jim

“……why not actually stand for something and make the case for it? Perhaps it would rub of on your colleagues?”

You can polish vegetables, but they remain vegetables.

It’s vanishingly unlikely that Labour are suddenly going to grow some balls given what we’ve seen over the past year. Their leadership team is deeply unimpressive, and even those with some presence like Ed Balls are still tainted by association with New Labour, which still appears worryingly lively for something staked through the heart in May 2010.

Is it any wonder that so many people who deserted the LD’s are unwilling to switch to Labour? They still aren’t convinced they are worth voting for, because to a large extent all the see coming out of the party is a sub-New Labour agenda which differs from the Coalition only in degree, not substance.

@22 Tim J

“Once Cameron made the offer of a full coalition to the Lib Dems, then the LDs really had little choice.”

Wow.. even after all this time, it really isn’t possible to kill a bad idea is it? This line is probably even LESS convincing now than it was 13 months ago. They did have a choice, they just didn’t have the political smarts. They sold themselves and the country cheap, and you know what….it hasn’t worked out well for either.

” If they’d turned it down, then Cameron would have tried to run a minority administration. They don’t last long, because the Govt is always looking for the first reasonable time to go to the country.”

Our system doesn’t give you enough evidence to substantiate that conclusion. this situation wouldn’t have been the same as previous minority governments, as the arithmetic was different. Clegg could have stood back, worked out a confidence and supply arrangement, and then voted down those policies he disapproved of. Cameron didn’t have all the cards, and there is little to suggest that he would have been successful if he’d engineered an early GE and tried to blame the LD’s for instability. The electorate could just as easily have punished the Tories for being unreasonable.

They did have a choice, they just didn’t have the political smarts.

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Are they trying to be a party of Government? If not, what’s the point? The whole being and purpose of the LDs has, for years if not decades, been to enter Government as a coalition partner. If they’d turned that down when it was offered on a plate they’d have denied the entire purpose of their party.

Clegg could have stood back, worked out a confidence and supply arrangement, and then voted down those policies he disapproved of.

And the Tories could have engineered a vote on a totemic measure, and then called a General Election. Only one party had the funds to run one. Minority Govts historically last less than a year before new elections.

The Lib Dems were always going to be screwed in a Hung Parliament. It’s a textbook example of being careful what you wish for. But they’d have been more screwed if they’d done anything else.

Galen10 @ 23

I doubt I will ever vote Labour, but what I find trully laughable is the fact that some of the monkeys actually think they could do a better job. Christ, talk about hiding your light under a bushell? I see neither a backbone or leader within the Party, nor even a movement that could produce one.

@26 Jim

Agreed. I wish I was more confident that something would change before 2015…. but I’m just not at this point

@25

“Minority Govts historically last less than a year before new elections.”

Well there’s only been two since ’45, can we really extrapolate from so little data? Granted Wilson’s minority lasted 8 months but Callaghan’s minority went from ’77 – ’79 (over a year). Arguably Major’s last few months were as a minority gov but he was always going to lose in 1997.
I’m not sure if it’s as black and white as you make it out to be.

28 – Nothing’s certain, but strategically the Tories would have been best advised to go early before meaningful cuts/reforms were implemented. It’s all a hypothetical, but the most simplistic thing of all is to say that the Lib Dems would have been much better off if they’d stayed out of Govt and engineered a S&C agreement.

@25 Tim J

The LD’s spent decades ruling out ANY deal with the Tories, which somewhat undermines your view of what they are (were?) for. Their left of centre support wasn’t a result of their willingness to get into bed with Tories, it was because the party self-identified as “of the left”.

Even those who could be reconciled to the necessity of forming a coalition with the Tories were only going to do so if the party got something meaningful out of it. It didn’t. Result, a meltdown. Go figure.

As pointed out, the experience in this country of minority governments doesn’t allow us to use them as much evidence of anything much, particularly as the conditions now are much different from previous situations.

The funding issue is a red herring; the money would have been found somewhere – democracy isn’t going to collapse because a couple of elections happen to be close together. They weren’t always going to be screwed; they were just badly advised, and badly led. As for being more screwed if they had acted differently…. are you on something? How much MORE screwed could they be than they are now? Laughable.