Could the Lib Dem bounce knock Blair off course?
January 11th, 2005-
What if the Lib Dems gain 5% during the campaign?
The big question for all those trying to forecast the 2005 General Election is will there be the traditional Lib Dem bounce?
For at every General Election since 1987 the Lib Dems have enjoyed spectacular increases of support during the formal campaign - in each case taking votes from Labour. In 1992, 1997 and 2001 the party was starting from a poll position in the low and mid-teens. This time almost all the polls have them in the low 20s.
In normal non-election times the party finds it difficult to command attention outside by-elections and the annual party conference. But during a General Election different rules apply in the broadcast media giving the party much greater coverage so that that is is almost on par with Labour and the Tories. The effect is shown in the polls.
Average uplift in Lib Dem ICM ratings based on four month average before the start of the campaign and what actually happened.
1992 Pre-campaign polls 14.9% Election 18% (Up more than a fifth)
1997 Pre-campaign polls 15.2% Election 17.2% (Up more than an eighth)
2001Pre-campaign polls 14.8% Election 18.8% (Up more than a quarter)
The party’s current rating in Martin Baxter’s “poll of polls” is 21%. Add a quarter to that with the votes coming from Labour and the two main parties are neck and neck.
In the afterglow of their conference in September the party had poll ratings of 25+% with Mori, ICM, CR and Populus. At the previous elections the Lib Dems chalked up vote shares similar to what they were polling immediatly after their conference the previous September. Such a bounce on this scale is not beyond the bounds of probablity.
In the last two elections Labour was so far ahead that the Lib Dem bounce did not matter. Now with Labour’s average poll rating at 37% losing 4-5 points could totally change the result.
Latest General Election spread betting prices from Spreadfair see a rise in the Tory and Lib Dem sell prices and a small drop in the Labour buy price.
LAB 352-354.5 (DOWN) : CON 194-197 (UP) : LD 69-71.5 (UP) : SNP 5-6: PC 3.8-5: UKIP 0.5-1.1
MessageSpace Advertising
My gut feel is that the LDs could gain another couple of % as part of the “bounce” phenomenon, but no more. To gain a bigger % than that would require some sort of momentum-gaining event to occur. Examples could include (but not exclusively):
- an event linked to Iraq that polarises opinion into pro- and anti-war positions (nod to Graham for this one)
- CK’s baby
- Labour election melt-down (Blair/Brown relationship comes apart under media glare)
I guess I best restate my position on this one…
It should be remembered that in 1992, 1997 and indeed 2001 the LDs where under effective media blackout, that has not been the case at least over the last two years or so, with by-election wins and “clear orange water” between them and Labour they have attracted far more press attention than in the past this has extended even to the point where LD spokespersons seem to be being asked to give the counterview to the government’s positions more often than their Tory counterparts.
A small bounce of 1-2% maybe, but remember that the LDs are likely to be at the receiving end of some pretty harsh attacks by both Labour and the Tories and such attacks will no doubt be backed up by the tabloid press also unlike in the past three elections the LDs do not have the problem of having to remind their own voters that they exist, it is now the case that the “recognition bounce” won’t happen in 2005 like it did in the past.
Another interesting feature of this campaign is that the LDs will be running on a pretty solid national platform, rather than the more amorphous collection of centrist polices that has been the norm in the past what the effect of running a single “national campaign” rather than the tradition series of “local campaigns” will be I don’t know, but it something not many people have commented on.
The above figures sugges tthe bounce is between 2% and 3%. A “plague on both your houses” effect could easily magnify this (think of disgruntled Labour voters and Stephen Robinsons)and this could be greater. Factor in the UKIP and the effect on seats gained could be quite significant.
Ben - there might be something in what you say but you don’t know and neither do I. But this is the issue of the General Election and what’s convinced me that it will be nearer to 5% than 1-2% is how the LDs always seem to perform in General Elections at about the same poll level they got during their party conference the previous September.
Isn’t Labour in a pickle over the level and tone of its attacks on the LDs? Surely it wants tactical voting to continue and heaping abuse on the LDs might not encourage party supporters to keep voting Labour to keep the Tories out.
Mike
I agree, but I think the LDs get a boost from running local campaigns in a number of seats and winning over voters there, this time however they seem to be locked into fighting a national campaign… also don’t forget that the LDs got far more media attention at their party conference this year, as a direct result of the fact that they where 1.) The only party offering a clear contrast to Labour and 2.) The only party that the media saw as effectively challenging Labour electoraly, so I don’t think the rules that applied to past LD conferences will apply this time around for the same reason that the “traditional bounce” won’t occur to the same degree.
As for how Labour deals with the LDs, it will be interesting while I disagree that there is much of an instinctively “Liberal Democrat” vote out there which would be offended, there are voters who would probably be pushed away by attacks they saw as too aggressive, I think the tone is likely to be less harsh and more “chiding” of LD polices if anything… as that strikes the right note, but I’m not in charge of the attack department
so what do I know?
Also tactical voting is overstated, the Tories gain 10 seats through “unwind” no more from the figures I’ve seen and even that could be disputed, what is more the boost for the LDs is coming not from “voters coming home” but from defections mostly from Labour that is not “unwind” as far as I can tell.
The crucial question is how far the LDs can present themselves on a seat-by-seat basis as the party to vote for if your protest is to be effective. That is, can they snaffle up people who say a plague on the lot of yer, I’m going to vote Respect, Green, Monster raving loony, whatever or stay at home. As usual with the LDs it’s a credibilty gap. I sense people want Labour to have a fright, but are unsure of how much a fright. The Tories are irrelevant except for the scenario to happen they obviously have to gain some seats but no-one (except Sarah!) wants to see them win.
I find the view that the LDs are receiving lots of media coverage quite extraordinary - more than previously maybe but no-where near the proportion we will get during the GE.
Mike - Why will the floating voter vote LD?- as I keep stressing LD policies doesn’t appeal - there is not that much disenchantment with Labour and the Iraq war is not the factor one would think.The LD greatist asset is that they are neither Labour or Tory,unfortunately they are seen as being too weak in all the wrong areas such as immigration,drugs,Europe to name only three.
Vino - why is is that whenever the LDs get media attention, like at party conference time when their politices are given a public airing - that their poll ratings go up? Your thesis does not fit what happens.
I agree with Mike- the Lib Dems are very good at covering up their unpopular policies and focusing on the issues THEY want to be at centre stage. Around here in a Lib Dem seat, you never hear about europe, the euro or this silly story about porn for teenagers. It is all about post office closures, more police and how hard working the Lib dem MP is. We are still seen a nice, friendly, local party, with a positive agenda.
The Lib Dems do have some very popular policies- constistantly against university fees, iraq, £25 a extra a week for pensioners. People just don’t swallow this spin from the other parties about our policies- both Labour and the tories focused on our policies in the recent by-elections- in the end, we lost mainly because of a blog entry and our candidate working with mobile phone companies!
I also agree with the view that the local campaigns are the centepoint of a Lib Dem election. I feel that with more organisation from head office, we may see a more organised, coherent and nationwide campaign, but the organisation is still very local and very patchy. That is why we see big swings to and from Lib Dems across the country. However, in my local Lib Dem campaign they are doing things there way- there own style and planning quite seperate from Cowley Street and it is working very, very well.
Mike - 9 - My thesis is that the “others” will get the bounce this time not the LD’s who will in my opinion flatline at18.9%.The protest vote will go to the Greens,BNP,Respect & UKIP.
The press/other parties won’t allow to hide your policies.
Like you[as in the american election]I will be up all nighton the 5/6 hoping my thesis is correct.
Another point to consider with LibDem policies on crime, immigration etc. is that not everyone in the country agrees with a right-wing or authoritarian perspective on these issues. While the liberally inclined may not make up the majority there are still plenty of us out there. And no one is suggesting the LibDems are going to poll in excess of 50%.
For every Vino out there, turned off by a more liberal agenda, there are people like me, drawn towards the party precisely because of it.
12 - Sorry Kit but I’m certain there are more Vino’s than Kit’s - ID cards 80% of the electorate for an example.
I know Vino. I spotted the glaring hole in my argument just after I’d posted. Mike/Robert, any chance we could have an edit function?
That said, while there are many more Vino’s than Kit’s, I’m sure I’m not in a minority of one. If we were talking about winning the popular vote you may have a point. But we’re dicussing whether the LDs gain 20 or 25% of the vote. I would suggest there are enough liberally inclined people out there to make up that gap.
As you suggest, many may vote for other parties (well, Green or ahem, Liberal - I don’t see liberals voting Respect or UKIP somehow), but I’m not sure so many will in the seats where it really matters for the LibDems.
Mike - 9 - I notice you have opportunistically missed out the 1987 GE which goes against your thesis - the average LD poll vote March 87 - May 87 was 25.07% against 1987 Election of 23% showing a drop in support.[unless I 've missed something]
I think most of the bounce will happen because so much of it is Labour supporters (in the SouthWest,etc), remembering that they live in one of the 100-plus seats where the main opponent to the Conservatives are the LibDems not Labour.
To that extent I think the bounce is inevitable; not that it will in itself actually help the LibDems win any new seats because its nothing new.
It would of however change the tenor of the campaign - especially if the Conservatives opinion poll share goes down into the 20s at some point because of UKIP, which I would say is very likely to happen whatever the final UKIP result turns out to be.
I know LibDems get annoyed with Vino, but what is LibDem posters’ own explanation for the fact that they seem to have got stuck at their current level of just over 20%? They climbed a lot 2 years ago (from 17$ to 22% approx) but have not really put on any extra support since.
Sorry if I’m boring people with a lot of posts tonight but if the pollsters are right and Labour will walk it then this will only encourage people to protest vote to “others” as it will not make any difference.
Kit at 11 and 14: This is an interesting and subtle point. There are q
villan, 30,
I can’t speak for Lib Dems, but I assume the sudden rise in support was essentially due to the war. The Great British Public have probably largely made up their individual minds on Iraq now so the LibDems can’t milk many more votes from that issue. But there’ll be other issues where they can open up clear yellow water. If religious groups (a la Bezhti (sp?) or Jerry Springer) continue to campaign noisily about works of art they dislike a space may arise for a party willing to defend free speech.
Although how that would play with the LDs new Muslim voters….
15 - they weren’t the Lib Dems then, though I’d question whether it doesn’t make more sense to include the Alliance in the figures. The Alliance did start to look divided between themselves in 1987 though, in a way which only having one leader ameliorates.
(Sorry, pressed “Say it” by mistake before I’d finished, I think.)
Kit at 11 and 14: This is an interesting and subtle point. There are quite a few policies which appeal to 20% of the electorate but repel a majority, and some of the arguments between Labour and LibDem people over, say, immigration control, reflect that. But if the LibDems want to expand beyond their natural base (GMW+misc protest, to summarise it a bit crudely, outside the Celtic bastions) they need to either modify their policies to be acceptable to a wider public or persuade the wider public to change its mind (a difficult thing to do) - the same dilemma Labour had in the 80s. The Orange Book was a shot at the former, but evidently not acceptable to most LDs.
In view of that, I think that CK has decided to settle for GMW+misc protest+Iraq. This is, I think, a missed opportunity, in view of current Tory weakness, but to be fair it reflects an idealistic reluctance by LD activists to shift their positions and “compromise with the electorate” in order to grab a chance at becoming the second major party.
It’s important to be aware that it is a strategic choice, though, in the same way as if Labour had decided to stick with CND and Clause 4, and it may limit the potential for bounce.
Nick
When parties perform badly at Local elections, by-electons etc., their spokespersons always say ‘our voters stayed at home’.
There is no polling evidence to support this. The only polls I have seen which have asked stay-at-home voters immediately after an election how they would have voted show a very consistent pattern: Labour and Conservative up around 1-2%, Liberal Democrats down around 2-3%. (the British Social Attitudes Surveys are my main source for this)
A significant proportion of the electorate decides how to vote on tribal and/or ideological grounds. Some of them vote tactically because they know their preferred candidate cannot win in their own constituency.
But a lot of voters don’t decide until the day of the election, or they decide on the way to the polling station, or in the polling booth when they read the list of candidates.
Like most voters they will have seen the election as a contest between Labour and Conservative. But they are undecided and at the last minute, instead of flipping a coin in their heads, they decide to go for the alternative that they hadn’t considered before they saw the ballot paper.
Nowadays there are usually more alternatives than the Liberal Democrats, but the majority of the last minute plumpers will tend to go to them. This, more than media exposure probably explains the campaign boost for the LDs (the post-election non-voters are just telling us who they identify with, not who they would have voted for if they were marched down to the polling station).
The above might sound patronising to some, but having spent a couple of general election days persuading positive canvass returns to come out to vote and then explaining again why they should vote our way…
My conclusion is that the Lib Dems will get their usual 2-3% boost, but no more than that, unless Labour or Conservatives do something during the campaign which causes a significant tranche of their potential supporters to defect.
Nick at 18 - has the No 10 censor been at your post?
Villan -19 - Using the same thesis as Mike Smithson the average monthly poll for the Lib Dems in the four months prior to commencement of the war was 22.5%(ICM) - it is now 22% therefore the same logic says that by being anti-war this has cost LD votes.
Steve at 23: Chuckle, sorry about that (see 21). I remember I used to edit a games magazine, and the publisher kept truncating articles to fit last-minute ads in. Eventually an infuriated reader wrote in to protest, and his letter was published as:
“I really must object to the way you truncate contributions in mid-”
The publisher, who had no detectable sense of humour, swore he hadn’t done it on purpose…
I’ve got to agree with Vino. If the Lib Dems ever look like getting 25% they will have to cope with endless negative press which will put them back down. I can just imagine the Sun running ‘Hardcore Porn at 16′ ‘no prison for drug users’ ‘Lib Dems soft on yobs’ day after day.
Ian at 26 - just an aside, but wasn’t Sam Fox 16 when she first appead on page 3? Perhaps their readers won’t make the link …
Before my time Steve! Anyway, I never said the Sun wasn’t hypocritical…
Vino 24 - (i) we’re talking about polls not votes; Lorcan’s point is a good one, though I accept that this time “Other” will also benefit from this (ii) the margin of error in opinion polls is some 2% IIRC.
Lorcan - 22 ” Nowadays there are usually more alternatives than the Liberal Democrats, but the majority of the last minute plumpers will tend to go to them.” Why will they?
I’ve been wondering about the change during the campaign as well, and noticed not only the Lib Dem bounce, but the fact that most (if not all it’s bounce) comes straight from Labour. My personal opinion is whatever the first poll is after the election is called, reduce Labour’s rating by one third, increase the Conservatives by one tenth and increase the Lib Dems by about a third to a quarter
Tabman Steve,
To be fair to the Sun, I don’t think that we could call Page 3 “Hard Core Porn”.
If they did change to such a Page 3, their readership would probably change noticeably. Sales would go down. The mind boggles.
Sorry - it’s late at night, and I’m mentally freewheeling.
Dear God, I just defended The Sun …
Anyway, I’ve got to agree with IanG - much of the press and the two big parties would go all-out on an anti-Lib Dem offensive if the Lib Dems showed signs of a full scale breakthrough.
If, as a punter, you want to get involved in markets like seats, then it’s not just a question of assessing the LD vote relative to primarily but not exclusively the Tory and UKIP vote. In the 1980s, the predecessor to the Lib Dems regularly polled well over 20% but with the Tory vote above 40%, they made little or no impression in terms of seats.
The LD “breakthrough” in 1997 was less the result of an increased LD vote share (down a notch on 1992 in fact) but the collapse of the Tory vote combined with tactical vote and targetted campaigning which emphasised the LD vote where it was needed.
In 2001, the Tory vote went up a notch but so did the LD vote so it was basically status quo. This time, the rise in the LD vote appears larger than the rise in the Tory vote and there is, for the first time since 1997, the complication of the UKIP vote. Now, while I know UKIP gets their support from across the board, it does seem to disproportionately impact on the Tory vote.
If UKIP poll nationally 2.5% (about what Referendum managed in 1997) and the Tory vote is about where it was in 2001 and the LD vote is up three or four points, it looks like the Tories lose seats to the LDs.
But it’s never as simple as that, is it ? 2001 showed that local vagaries, quality of candidates, local organisation etc counts for so much in an election with poor turnout. How else to explain statistical oddities like Ludlow, Kettering and Upminster which behaved contrary to the national or even regional swing ?
On that evidence alone, trying to call seats for 2005 in an election with 55-60% turnout (if we’re lucky) is hazardous. I suspect there will be a number of quirky results which makes calling the spreads on seats very awkward.
I won’t be getting involved until well into the campaign.
Andy C - I am aware there is a difference between softcore and hardcore
Still - there is a POV that says such frenzied attacks by the press Rottweilers might gain as much support as they lose? Some of those small “l” liberals previously sticking with the Tories or Labour may be persuaded to jump ship.
Tabman Steve - 34 - There aren’t any left the Lib Dems have them all.
Vino - there may not be many but there are some. Whether that’s enough to be significant is a moot point. Evidence? Look at the Tories who are incensed by ID cards.
Tabman Steve,
Following up on your point at 36, I’m starting to think that the Lib Dems may have missed a chance in shying away from the Orange Book proposals.
Moving to a libertarian/liberal/market solutions stance could strongly attract the libertarian, One Nation and Free market/capitalist segments of the Tory party, leaving behind merely the authoritarian and traditionalists. They’d have had to do it without losing the social democratic component of their core, however, which could have been very difficult.
Vino, re 30. I think mainly because they have a higher profile and are more mainstream than the alternatives, and so will have more appeal to the type and voter I described.
Andy Cooke at 37.
Very good point. But were the LD’s to move towards more market liberalism, where would the social democratically minded have to go? Back to Labour?
Kit at 39,
They could move back to Labour, or stick with the LDs and attempt to moderate the effects that they disapprove of (like One Nation Tories in the Thatcherism era, of the social democrats who stuck with Labour in the Foot era).
After all, the big parties are quite broad coalitions at the best of times.
Anyway, it’s now a might-have-been. Even if the next LD leader is mor e “Orange Book”, that would be for after the election.
The need to attract Eurosceptics would also be a problem (especially in the South West)
Andy - I agree with you (and so does Nick P, which could be a good thing, or could be a cunning Labour double-bluff to send us up a blind alley :)).
Such a move is a big risk - it would to a certain extent remove its USP (although Blair’s approach doesn’t sit easily with the majority of the Labour party even though the electorate find it attractive - I suspect when he goes so will the policy), and may not attract many Tories, who can be remarkably tribal. So you could lose left-leaning votes and not replace them from the right.
Conversely, if played correctly, you could hold onto your left wing and augment the right. IMHO the way to do this would be to go back to the early C20th Liberal heritage of capitalism with a safety net. Both Labour and the Tories espouse this but neither of them sound totally credible; no-one really believes that the Tories care about providing a safety-net and Labour are far too fond of big government.
But the Liberal Democrats could be the party of small government, libertarian economics and a strong social safety net, not wedded to producer interests. However I think it will take another electoral cycle for that to emerge - we must start pushing for it from within L)
Rays of light in the gloom tonight, Steve. Dare we dream of the resurrection of the Liberal party? O my fry and campbell-bannerman of long ago! Seems as you and others are daring to say alost opportunity this time but, hey, if you,ve been waiting all these years, what’s another 4 or 5 ? except of course in 2009 it will be a whole different ballgame.
If the Lib Dems become classical liberals Labour walk 2009, why do you think Ben keeps talking up Mark Oaten?
A Lib-Dem “bounce” might take more support from Labour in the polls, but the Lib-Dems start closer to the Tories. Suppose the “true” level of opinion is Lib Dem 23%, Tory 32%, but a rogue poll right on the margin of error said Lib Dem 26%, Tory 29% - that would give a totally different message.
Small “l” liberal member of the Conservative Party signing in here, ladies and gents.
Re 15 Vino. The Liberal Democrats party did not exist at the 1987 General Election - instead you had two parties, the Liberals and the SDP, trading under a name “the Alliance” with all the public perception problems of split leadership which was never going to stand the extended scrutiny of an election campaign.
Even so the Alliance secured a tenth more votes than ICM suggested in their final poll - Labour got nearly a tenth less. So there was a surprise.
I agree with ben ( I’ve got to stop this) while I expect a bounce during the campaign, to a certain extent the LDs have been receiving the additional media attention which give us that bounce for some while now. none th less there will be a greater level of media coverage of LD, I believe the proportion is 3:3:2, during the cmapaign itself. I expect an increase of between 1-3% during the campaign itself - I anticpate us ending up with 22-23%.
Also, there is no contradiction between running a better “Air War” or national campaign, with strong meida messages which resonate on key issues, and running a local guerilla-style “ground war” in what amounts to a series of 100 simultaneous by-elections.
In terms of positioning, the party has adopted a number of hghly populist policies which directly appeal to key segments of the electorate it needs to win certain seats, from £25 on pensions, to saving local Post Offices, to the Iraq War, to scrapping Tuition fees. As an Orange book liberal I must admit to not being terribly keen on all of these but in electoral politics they are very effective. I expect the LDs to end up with around 65-70 or so seats. My guess is that after the election the real debate about policy direction, whether the Orange Book approach offer a route forward will start in earnest, especially if the Tories get under 200 seats.
Unfortunately, as an Orange LD in inclination though not in party membership, I agree with Paul P. As Sean said on another thread, those who believe in limited government in economic matters, and social liberalism, are quite thinly spread in the general population though they make their voice heard on the Internet.
A rightward move by the LDs would be about preaching from the wilderness (I don’t believe it’s impossible to win the electorate round long-term like that, but not short-term).
Brutus 42 - you read it here first: LRDG (Liberal Reform Discussion Group)
Paul P 43 - yes there’s a risk as I acknowledged. But (a) Ben could be double-bluffing (talking up the option on the view that we’ll discount it when in reality its exactly what we should do), (b) what makes you think they’ll walk it and (c) again, as I said, some suport my leave but some my come in, depending on the Coservative response. Which leads me on to:
Iain 45: realising your party is a broad church, and speaking totally hypothetically, what conditions would you see bringing about a schism int he Conservative party? I have anecdotal evidence of “early guard” ex-Tories seeking a new home elsewhere, but do you think on balance tribal loyalty will mitigate against this?
Bullseye 47 - I thought the porportions (in PPB terms at least) where 5:5:4, with others 1 each.
You could also simplify the LD task as follows: being Conservative opposition in the South and West; being Labour opposition in the cities. More liberal policies would help in consolidating ex-Conservative support in the cities; the big question is whether they will encourage more Tory defectors in the South or alienate other elements of support (eg Labour TVs).
Vino is wrong about the war. The war gave the LDs a boost to the early mid 20s, much of which they held on to. I think Mike’s assessment of the conference figure being pre election being the final figure for them. The LDs will probably poll between 24 - 26% @ the election, but who it harms and who it doesn’t is where the real debate lies.
Two thoughts……an all out offensive from the Sun will be less effective than in the past as the Suns readership is at it lowest point since 1974 and very few of its readers vote LD anyway….
People mentioned the alliance campaign in 87…I had forgotten it (the trauma was to great!!) but for a year or so before there were problems with two leaders….some substantial issues most to do with who was “top dog” these came out in the general election……hmm remind anyone of Blair Brown or just wishful thinking on my part….
I agree they will poll 24-26%. My own assessment is similar to Bullseye’s, though as a natural pessimist I’m expecting aroun60 seats.
Graham - am I right in thinking you have a family connection to the forthcoming election?
Mark - do you remember the devastating Spitting image sketch with diddy David Steel and big David Owen, which went something along the lines of:
DS - “So are we going to merge the parties David?”
DO - “Yes David”
DS - “And what’s the name of the party going to be David?”
DO - “Well David, I thought we take one word from your party - Party; and one word from my party - Social-Democratic.”
DS - “OK David, and who will lead this party?”
DO - “Well David, I thought we’d take one name from your name - David; and one name from mine - Owen.”
DS - “So it’s going to become the Social-Democratic Party lead by David Owen?”
DO - “Yes David, that’s right.”
DS - “Oh Daivd, you’re so masterful …”
Brutally funny ….
IIRC Spitting Image had a big following at the time and I’m sure that their representation of the Alliance drip-fed into the public consciousness.
Mark - the point re the Sun is not that it wil put off existing voters, but that it will frighten potential voters (C1/2,D,E Tories and Labour) from voting LD.
Spitting Image also satirised LD “…but something in between” equidistance heavily. Ashdown’s affair revealed in the 1992 campaign was a gift to them: “I didn’t touch her left leg; I didn’t touch her right leg…”
So Mike can blame ‘92 on the latex
Now you mention it I remember that one as well.
Interesting that there is no similar political satire - the nearest we have is Rory Bremner, but that’s not mainstream. Says a lot, I think.
“Two thoughts……an all out offensive from the Sun will be less effective than in the past as the Suns readership is at it lowest point since 1974 and very few of its readers vote LD anyway….”
I wouldn’t be so certain - MORI’s figures are that 11% of Sun readers voted Liberal Democrat at the last election - with a current Sun readership in the NRS of 8,870,000, that would mean 975,000 Sun readers voting Lib Dem.
In contrast, 44% of Independent readers voted LD - equating to 275,880 LD voters. In the same way 364,480 Guardian readers voted LD.
This is assuming that everyone who reads a newspaper votes, which is obviously untrue, and my guess is that a higher proportion of Indy and Guardian readers actually vote than Sun readers, the real figures would be far closer. All the same, Sun readers do, ironically, make up a significant proportion of Lib Dem support.
Anthony - these figures are clearly much higher than their official circulation figures. How do they extrapolate from circulation to readership?
It is from huge great opinion polls - the sample is something like 34,000. You can’t extrapolate them from circulation figures since they themselves are notoriously unreliable thanks to the giving away of free copies under various guises.
TS - details about the NRS (National Readership Survey) are here
I don’t really believe that people who take the Sun take their political views from it - the evidence says not - but rather the other way round. They well may end up publicising LD policies which are more popular than they think, and giving us a bit more credibility rather than less.
Re 15 (Vino) and 46 (Mike) - and the original point: I think Vino’s right to say we should include ‘87 to get a true picture of the “bounce” effect. But ‘87 might be difficult to grasp from just looking at averages - in the 83 to 87 parliament the Alliance was pretty strong, in spite of the 83 result, and was ahead of both the other parties in the opinion polls at times but by the start of the election campaign was a poor third. It’s fair to say that the dynamics were quite different then - the SDP and the Alliance were such big news in the 1980s that it’s difficult to compare the effects of media coverage then and now. So you end up looking at a pattern for only three elections: 92, 97 and 2001. I wonder how solid that can be? In statistical terms, that would count as insignificant.
If there is a real bounce there has to be a reason for it - not just a statistical effect. The media coverage issue does seem a very likely explanation, but I don’t think we really have any objective measure of this. What matters is how much exposure the LDs get to the kind of people who don’t generally think about politics. LDs may have been getting more coverage in the last couple of years in the Independent and on Channel 4 news, etc - but I think if you read the Sun or Mail you’d still have the impression it was just Tory/Labour. But I don’t know for sure - are there any objective measures of overall coverage of the parties?
PS - Re 49 (Tabman Steve) last line: I like the idea of “Labour TVs” as a category of voter - is that men in frocks who supported the invasion of Iraq? L)
Tabman
Yes I remember the Spitting Images sketches they were devastating because they picked up on something that was real….I loved the way they protrayed Kinnock and hattersly…..I will never forget the morning after the 87 general election until then It had never occured to me that the Alliance might actually have fewer MPs at the end of the campaign than at the start…the national campaign was awful although there were a lot of very good local campaigns and a lot of work on the ground…….I dont want to think about it I am having a bad enough day as it is
On the issue of the Sun the substantive point remains the same…their circulation figures are at the lowest since 74 I believe many of their readers dont vote anyway…..it will have alot less effect on the election anyway…..
Have you seen the populous figures on the war in Iraq…..quite incredible but reflects the failure of opposition parties to turn opposition to the war to their advantage…or the polls are wrong!
Duncan
I remember the 87 campaign and like most campaigns the Alliance/Lib Dems sliped back in the polls at the start of the campaign then gained ground…..interestingly they did not slip back so much in 2001…in 83 there was the Alliance surge over the last ten days following the “Etterick bridge summit” whcih changed the dynamics of the campaign……rather like the Kinnock sheffield rally in 92
Cymrumark - Yes, that’s right. Another factor in 87 was that there had been a byelection “shocker” - which has always given LDs/Liberals/Alliance a nudge upwards in the polls - just before the GE. Wasn’t Greenwich in March 1987?
Indeed it was and I had many a happy post conference breakfast with messrs Rennard, Chegwyn and Key when I brought CRs post down from Leicester…….CR used his winnings from betting on Rosie Barnes to pay my wages to work in the “target seat” in the east midlands…….. which just made the result even worse!
in my humble opinon the liberals will get around 20%, i think the liberals won’t get all the protest votes which will cost them picking up some new seats like letwins but i think it will help them though in some seats, meaning a drop in support for labour in labour marginals letting the liberals in that way.
Duncan 62 - LOL (trust me to be unintentionally funny) - “I am a Lady, and Ladies do NOT support the war, do we Emilly?”
Mark 64 - unfortunately (for the Iraqis) I think the Iraq elections are going to be a mess … will be interesting to see what that does.
Stuart 67 - most Labour marginals are Lab/Con, so Lab - LD switching will help Cons unless they also haemorage to UKIP.
THe Lib Dem position in the polls is almost totally linked to the media coverage that they are commanding which is why they always get a huge boost at conference time. Without coverage people forget them and say they are supporting the two main parties.
At a General Election they are treated with a seriousness and given more time than during other periods and this, surely, is why there is the campaign surge. Quite what it will be I do not know - we can only guess. But there is some correlation between election performances and what they were getting in the polls at the previous September’s conference.
Brutus 42 - “if you,ve been waiting all these years, what’s another 4 or 5 ? except of course in 2009 it will be a whole different ballgame. ”
It seems foolish to bethinking of 2009/10 when 05/6 could throw up a whole range scenarios (hung- parliament(s) followed by AV+ could mess things up :)), but I was interested by this comment. What’s your take on the election after next?
Above was me
Mike, what is the level of media interest that the Lib Dem’s need to move the needle? Some have argued that the Lib Dems are already getting more exposure than previously and that they are therefore already benefitting from their ‘bounce’. You know I have argued, like you are, that the LDs will get a campaign bounce, but of course that may not be the case. An alternative prediction (that I know will get short shrift amongst all the hardbitten realists on this site, but will excite all the Lib Dems), is that the LDs could get a bigger campaign bounce as th
Sorry pressed the ’say it’ before I’d said it! …bigger campaign bounce if the perception is that they are making serious ground. There are a number of studies to show that parties in ‘good’ third places do well in elections.
There was even an article on the mathematics of it in New Scientist..
Jon/Graham - I posted the article in full on the thread beginning 30/11/04 - I think that was about the time you made your first appearance here Graham IIRC. Thanks to BV for the search methodology (google on pb.c and New Scientist)
That is the main one - something about magnets (???) I think. It all makes sense when you read it!
Comment 11 references the wrong one - comment 14 is the right one.
Im sure the LDs are already partially enjoying their bounce but equally pretty sure there will be a campaign bounce from the increased attention. If they enter the election at 20-21 my prediction is a 22-23% result though they could breach 25%.
On 1987 - it was an awful cmapign - 2 leaders who clearly couldnt stand each other, getting on 2 battle buses and oing off in 2 directions. The 1st poll of the the camp[aign actually put the alliance ,arginally ahead of labour (as someoen said the Greenwich effect) but they soon slipped back. That was however the ONLY election since 1970 where the 3rd party has not improved its poll ratings during the campaign. On blance although I think pepeople are right to argue that they won’t receive the same impact as last time (when they added 5-6%) the LibDems should be able to get a 2-3% bounce from the increased election coverage.
I’ve just thought that the Libs may not have increased their support during the Oct 1974 election campaign. Can anyone earn the anorak of the year award to give me an answer on that?
I’ve never been convinced that ‘all publicity is good publicity.’
Even in the 20% the Lib Dems get in the polls now I’d guess that true social liberals or ‘tribal Lib Dems’ are in a minority compared to people who want ‘anybody but Labour or Tory’ or want to make a protest against the Iraq war or just think Kennedy is a nice guy. These people, not to mention the 5% that some here think they can add during a campaign, may well be scared off by negative campaigning.
I can also see Labour and Tory organisers all over the country filing away articles from Libdemwatch ready to use if their support looks to be leaking to the Lib Dems.
Although not a Lab or Con organiser I would be surprised if anyone is filing stuff from LDW…..I look for stuff there but little of it is any use …and simply reflects the obsessions of the westmidlands labour people with John Hemming……putting out a leaflet anywhere in the uk about John Hemming being an opportunist (as is anyone who campaigns against labour it seems) will not win votes for anyone….
Graham re 72 & 73. I agree with you that the LDs at these levels does take us into uncharted territory when the old wasted vote argument becomes much less valid. The bounce could easily be much bigger taking votes from both the Tories & Labour. I’ve recalled here before my £10 bet at 132/1 on the LDs winning most seats. With both Labour and the Tories disliked for one reason and another it could just be a winner if the campaign poll positions make the party look credible. Certainly worth a 132/1 shot.
Mike 82 - this makes me recall the LD campaign poster (If you thought the LDs could win in your area this is how you’d vote). Do you know the basis on which that statement was made? The other thing was that the graphical representation was dramatic but of course contained a number of geographically-large seats that makes the country look “yellower” than it is
Here’ the famous poster. I think that both Broxtowe and Norfolk North are yellow!!
And this looks like the source data (never understimate the power of google …):
http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/libdem.shtml
To my untrained eye I think its reporting Lab 36 Con 23 LD 36, with around 25% of Con and Lab switching in their areas. To get the nice map you’d need the software from UK elect but I’m off to feed those figures into Baxter and dream …
I believe somebody did a poll for the LDs saying, “if you thought the Lib Dems could win in your area, who would you vote for?” It was a highly flawed leading question of course (in that the question suggested far too strongly what the answer “should” be) but a bit of fun for the LDs anyway.
I was reminded of it on Sunday (?) when the Indy published a poll where the questions were something like 1. Who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow? and 2. Who would you vote for if Gordon Brown were Labour leader? Unsurprisingly, many more people said Labour in answer to the second question. Regardless of whether Brown would attract more support, the way the question was phrased rendered the poll meaningless, in my view.
I would be interested to hear from professional pollsters who contribute to this site. It strikes me that for all the technical debates over appropriate weighting and so on, it is this sort of thing (newspapers or parties or whoever saying “We’ll give you the answer, you give us the question”) that brings the business into some disrepute.
Ian G - yes, I agree all publicity is not good publicity - but attacks on the LDs are not new & the party has some skill in rebutting them - sometimes that works & sometimes it doesn’t but don’t expect a sudden collapse.
In terms of the expected bounce - c ertainly as I said I expect a fairly modest one, however there is an outside chance that campaign mistakes by Lab or the Cons could lead to the LDs gaining “the nig mo” (no thats not mowlam) and pushing above 25% - if that happens all bets are off, as we could see a subtantial swing from both the main parties to the LDs. But as I say I think that is extremely unlikely.
Our posts crossed. So Mori was the guilty pollster! Naughty.
You get a Labour majority of 140 on those figures. And 15 Tory seats.
James - how could you ask the same question in a less leading manner that still put forward that concept?
Putting my professional hat on. ‘It is commonly reported in the media that Gordon Brown would like to take over from TB as Prime Minister. Would this make you more or less likely to vote Labour at the next GE?’
Graham - thanks. And the Lib Dem question?
In the 36/23/36 scenario I’m sure Nick P will be relieved to know that he’s safe
16 Villan - Absolutely right. There’s a fairly sizeable Labour vote in the SW that shows up as Labour in Opinion Polls but votes LD on General Election day as they know the score. NB I said General Election on purpose as different factors come into play in other elections.
Ian G - We had a good discussion on here a few months ago about each parties core vote - my view is that the LDs now have a core vote of about 8-10% the Tories of about 25%-30% and Labour of about 30%-35%.
I think both Tories & labour have larger amount of core support, however, the big difference is that while LibDems core support is growing esp among Muslims & GMWs (and to a lesser extent the white working class) both Lab & Tories are seeing their core support being threatened.
I think that you over estimate Both the Lab and Tory core support Bullseye - more like Con 18 and Lab 23 (see Indy poll the other day).
I would argue that part, at least, of the Lib Dem raditional “bounce” can be explained in terms of increased local activity on the part of helpers. I think people who normally do not do much, suddenly become motivated to participate, in the short term at least. So, if there is a reasonable basic organisation to start with, this also leads not only to an improved percentage nationally, but also to a disproportionately good local result.
Is that from personal experience John? Extrapolating from turnout you can see that if more people are motivated to vote at a GE, more would be motivated to help out.
Re: 90. Yes, I take your point that it is not necessarily deliberate skew - questions can be tricky to phrase.
But how about, “If you believed that all of the major political parties (Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat [add nationalist for Scots/Welsh]) had an equal chance of winning in your area, who would you vote for?” with party names rotated each time. That would make the “right” answer a lot less obvious.
Similarly, the Indy should perhaps have asked “1. Who would you vote for at a general election if Blair were Labour leader? and 2. Who would you vote for if Brown were Labour leader?” This would probably skew the poll to Labour overall but would enable a more valid conclusion as to whether Brown would tend to increase Labour support in my view. Possibly they could also ask who people would vote for if Nick Palmer (or Ben) were Labour leader so as to see whether people like Brown or are just saying “anyone but Blair” and do not care who “anyone” is.
Yes - personal experience, though from some time ago, but I would suspect that it still holds good, and probably for all parties. However, I think it would be more significant in the case of the Lib Dems, in that the Toreis and Labour get more constant attention via the media.
That being said, I think there would be different levels of motivation for the different parties. If morale is low in the ranks of Labour supporters, for example, (pace Ben and Nick) they would be less likely to pick up fresh helpers during the campaign.
I think that many of the comments on this site are made, at least inpart, to boost morale of supporters and demoralise others.
John - IIRC we had a discussion some time ago about how the loss of GMW would hurt Labour disproportionately because these are precisely the sort of people who are prepared to be active. Look at John Harris (he of the “Who do you vote for now?” book), active Labour member in leafy Tatton. I have anecdotal evidence of precisely such a person switching his activism elsewhere.
The Mori 36/23/26 scenario was based an an opinion poll that had headline figures of Labour 49, Con 31, LD 13. So Labour went down 13% and the Tories 8%. . So to the question you thought the Liberal Democrats could win in your constituency, how would you vote - it was
LAB 36(-13): CON 23 (-8): LD 36 (+23)
with both Labour and the tories losing about a third of their vote. Applying that proportion to today’s Baxter poll of polls you get
Lab 25.5: CON 21.5: LIB DEM 43%. On this the Baxter calculator gives
LIB DEM 547 seats: LAB 67 seats: CON no seats at all.
I win my 132/1 bet and I might take a different view of FPTP!
I doubt if Labour will lose too much sleep over the loss of an activist in Tatton!
That said, it’s hard to believe that losing so many members and councillors over the past few years won’t have *some* effect on their ability to campaign. It may only be marginal, but as someone here said, FPTP elections are won at the margins.
And am I right in thinking that on those figures £10 a seat on the current LD spread price would give you a further £4760!
Interesting, especially the ABC1 nature of the source
“Pollsters give the Lib Dems a good shot at toppling Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Oliver Letwin, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, and former Tory Chairman Theresa May, who all squeaked by in 2001 with narrow majorities. Even Howard could fall to a Lib Dem surge.”
Stanley Reed
Business Week - 10 January 2005
Sean - haven’t you heard about the recent formation of the Socialist Republic of Knutsford?
“When the revolution comes we will ALL drive Mercedes 4×4s!”
Graham - 96. Is that of electorate as a whole or those likely to vote, my figures are for likely voters
I propose that all ballot papers in the UK are henceforth altered to read “Given the Lib Dem candidate, [Name], can win here, which of the following do you support?”
Surely there can be no rational objection
To 104 Graham - Yes -that’s what the spread winnings would produce
Bullseye. I think though, that you are being a little unfair on the ‘hardness’ of the Lib Dem vote, or maybe overestimating the other two’s hardness. To get an estimate of core vote, the best way would be to look at the raw figures of party namers. Lab consistently get about 22-25%, the Cons 16 to 19% and the Lib Dems 10 to 12%.
Mike. So the sensible course of action is to wait til April, and if the Libs go up 1% in an early poll, all pile in with £50 for a happy return of £23800, before Spreadfair catch on
steve at 70/1 - my last sentence on 42 was meant to be ironic -
but without the new technology- because that’s been the good old Liberal post-election pick-me-up for around 30 years. 
My take on 2009 is, if NuLab get a good working majority this time we may find 2009/10 is postponed indefinitely (unless we have a Soviet-style election, of course) 
Brutus - sorry, naivety showing there
However, there has been some speculation on how thigns might pan out in 09/10 were the most likely scenario (Lab maj of 70-80) to come pass.
A lot depends on the relative position of the other two; Tories 180 or less then serious problems. 210+ then starting to look dangerous.
Similarl LDs - 80 seats plus plenty of good 2nd places would make things very intersting. Unchanged or slightly down then the moment will ahve passed.
steve, I agree. Pessimistcally, signs are Tory score about 200 versus LD score about 70, which I guess in inconclusive - although the media would probably play this as a non-event, which is bad for both parties and effectively means no opposition (yet again)
Graham alas you can only trade on spreadfair if a punter is wiling to take the other side - since about half of the LD sell offers are mine this is not going to happen!
To 111. your figures are right but, sadly, I’m yet to be convinced that it is a certainty. I’d just settle for LDs - 500 seats.
Interms of the LD bounce, don’t forget that their supports are going to be well motivated come the GE more so than at any of the previous elections. Both Labour & Tory supporters have something to be depressed about - be it factional splits or percieved under achievement. Even though it will be a GE, it will be very hard to get all your troops to work harder than before if they are poorly motivated.
Sorry to be (characteristically) less pessimistic - I wouldn’t say optimistic (!) than most poster about the Tories chances, but the only evidence we have of the impact of a vicious campaign head-to-head between Labour and the Lib Dems, was in Brent East and Leicester South, where the Tory vote barely shifted. This suggests that any Lib Dem “surge” will impact more on Labour than the Conservatives? The only difficulty for the Lib Dems is - do they have the organisational resources to defend such an onslaught - They surely can’t “target” more than (say) 6 to 8 Labour seats as intensively as, for instance, Hormsey and Wood Green, where B Roche is history, by all accounts…..
Not to mention Hodge Hill and Hartlepool, Sarah, where again the Tories fared extremely badly IIRC.
The problem is that we have not had a byelection recently where the Lib Dems could go head to head with the Tories - when a different pattern might have been thrown up.
It was a great pity that the Conservatives allowed Michael Trend not to resign his seat in Windsor - that would have been fascinating……
Graham - 50 - “Vino is wrong about the war. The war gave the LDs a boost to the early mid 20s, much of which they held on to.”
Iraq War started March/April 2003 when support for the LD’s was 24%/21%[ICM].Since that date[apart from September 2003] support for the LD’s is around 21-23%
Where is the boost?
Windsor will be fascinating anyway. It could be repeat of Cheltenham in 1992. There are still many Tory voters (not to mention members) who are still fairly bigoted (and ignorant). Just look at the shenanigans in Bradford West where the CRE got involved.
The Tories have been so lucky that they have not had to defend a by-election for such a long time. I guess it’s almost too late now for one to take place before May 5.
I think it’s called not having many MPs Mike. I think they would have liked Reading E though it would have been a risk. Third place there would have been game over for a generation I think. More probably it would have been a Tory gain…
Maybe, but the Tories have been unlucky that there hasn’t been a Labour-Conservative marginal this Parliament - that would have been interesting.
Re: 124. Look at the 1992 performance of the Conservatives in the seats where the recent by-elections took place.
Hartlepool 34.9%; Brent East 36.5%; Leicester South 33.7%; Hodge Hill 36.3%. There may have been boundary changes since, but the fact that these seats aren’t Lab/Con marginals shows how big the mountain is the Conservatives have to climb.
At one point, it was considered that Welwyn Hatfield was going to come up as a by-election which would have been very lucky for the Conservatives (not that I wish ill to Melanie Johnson).
I’m new to this website, but I wanted to put in my twopennorth worth. I think this coming election may not see anything more exciting than a repeat of the last general election for the Lib Dems: a small rise in the vote with a modest increase in seats. Despite all the hype now.
The Lib Dems have been fairly consistently at 20% for some time now which is significantly above the percentage they had at this point at the last election. I think things are changing and the Lib Dems have now reached a new base level (I don’t see them ever being at 20 seats again because they’ve built up most of those gained in 97 so well and the opposition have often vanished) and this will be reflected in the amount their vote can increase at the general election. Their media profile is higher now albeit still less than Tory or Labour, and so some of those previous Lib Dem floaters will now be regular Lib Dems. I would guess the Lib Dems get about 20-21%.
For seats I’d say a modest increase to 60-65. They will lose some seats but make a net gain. It will again come down to local circumstances. These local circumstances won’t just be about how well the Lib Dems campaign, but now also about how well Labour and Tories work. In the past you could discount Labour and Tory campaigns making a real difference as they were normally complacent and ineffective, but I think many have now learnt their lessons and play the Lib Dems at their own game.
To name seats the party will lose I’d go with: Hereford, Somerton & Frome, Weston-super-Mare, Leicester South, Devon West & Torridge, Guildford, and Cheltenham. I don’t believe that North Norfolk will be lost, my friends there say that Norman Lamb is unbelievably popular even if the councillors are less so. Norman will win, not by loads, but there won’t be a recount.
Gains are harder to predict as they should have won more last time, but it wasn’t always apparent to those outside which they’d win or lose until you saw the result and looked in to why. Prominent scalps will most likely be Theresa May, Tim Collins and David Davis. The Lib Dems will pick up a handful against Labour - Cardiff Central is a dead cert, Brent East should be held, Hornsey & Wood Green and/or Islington South are possible. The party should do well in Scotland, in particular I’d go for Inverness and East Dunbartonshire as the candidates in both are very good and they are working hard.
The Conservatives have had a winnable by election in the last four years in Ipswich, a seat they held between 1987-1992. Even though it was held before any of Blair’s major problems came up (specifically Iraq), they did virtually nothing. It is sympotamatic of the uphill battle they face to win the seats they would need to form a government.
Thanks for an interesting post Andy. Any thoughts on Bristol W? It seems a lot of LDs regard that one as a dead cert too.
Re 128: I had remembered Ipswich - this was before Labour became unpopular and the margin was 21%, probably out of range then.
But if it had been in 2003 or 2004, the Tories would have got much closer.
Another poster said this about me last night “ I know LibDems get annoyed with Vino”[I know it was not meant to be insulting] and if you do here is the reason why.
All of the Tory and Labour posters on the site (well almost all) back their statements with evidence where possible. I always try to do this, which is why most of my posts have calculations in them.
However the vast majority of LD posters say things that appear to contradict the reality of the situation, at times it becomes a feeding frenzy for how many seats you will take off Labour / Tories /Whoever all of which appears to be based on wishful thinking. [Mike, however always uses statistics back on me]
I have therefore got into the habit of asking “why” if possible – we all have gut feelings which flies in the face of evidence.
I realise that the majority of posters on the site are LD but I am not affiliated to any party and can only give you my view as I see it.
Regarding Andy 127: I agree with most of your analysis. I have heard that Western Lib Dems just don’t do anything. Therefore, they have lost so many by-elections, and are going to get stuffed. I think Nigel Jones going is also a death knell for that seat. He did have a sypathy vote four years ago, and the Lib Dems lost the elction. However, I have heard that they have an excellent Lib Dem organiser in that seat.
I disagree about Guildford and Somerton and Frome - the Lib Dems are very well organised in the latter. They have won 5 by-elections in a row- 4 in areas with Tory councillors. The tory candidate is, in my opinion, a very poor, young and stunt-making choice, against David Heath, who has a strong personal vote, and is one of Westminster’s greatest MP’s in parliament. Even his hunting views don’t seem to have caused too many problems (for the record: he abstained).
I have heard others say that Sue Doughty is a good constituency MP. I think she may hold it.
Iain Dale in N Norfolk says his personal polls have the Tories at well over 40%. I keep getting conflicting messages from different people. Will be one of the most interesting results on election night.