Party members split over the future of Europe

LDV asked: Which of the following options would be your ideal future for the UK and the European Union?

46% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU and work towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
40% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU but reject working towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
10% – The UK should secure substantial renegotiation of its existing relationship with the EU but remain a full member.
3% – The UK should leave the EU altogether and instead negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU.
2% – Don’t know / No opinion

Though the Lib Dems are generally identified in the public’s minds as the most pro-European, it’s clear from our survey that party members’ views are more nuanced. Just under half, 46%, back ever closer political and economic union — but that leaves 53% arguing for a rejection of further integration between the UK and our European neighbours, including a minority who would like to see renegotiation or even the UK’s exit from the EU.

The results are broadly similar to when we last surveyed Lib Dem members in September, though with a small shift towards a more ‘eurosceptic’ position.

Almost three-quarters back new Eurozone rules

LDV asked: The Eurozone refers to the 17 of the 27 countries within the EU that use the Euro. The UK is not part of the Eurozone. In December, European leaders agreed new rules for the Eurozone which will mean that countries in the Eurozone will have to balance their budgets, there will be punishments for countries which run up deficits that are too large, and countries in the Eurozone will have their budgets monitored by the EU. Do you support or oppose these new rules?

73% – Support
15% – Oppose
12% – Don’t know / No opinion

Almost three-quarters of Lib Dem members we surveyed supported the new rule for the Eurozone countries, with just 15% opposed.

Cameron’s Euro ‘veto’ scores badly with Lib Dems…

How well or badly do you think David Cameron handled the negotiations on behalf of the UK at the European summit in December?

Very well – 2%
Well – 6%
Total well = 8%
Neither well nor badly – 8%
Badly 33%
Very badly 51%
Total badly = 84%
Don’t know / No opinion – 1%

Well the Prime Minister’s so-called ‘veto’ may have wowed the right-wing media in December, but it didn’t win him plaudits among Lib Dem members — a net 76% of those we surveyed felt Mr Cameron had handled the negotiations badly.

… And Nick Clegg’s handling of the ‘veto’ gets a mixed response

How well or badly do you think Nick Clegg handled the Liberal Democrat response to the European summit in December?

Very well – 9%
Well – 36%
Total well = 45%
Neither well nor badly – 23%
Badly – 21%
Very badly – 9%
Total badly = 30%
Don’t know / No opinion 2%

A bit of a mixed result for Nick Clegg, with fewer than half of the members in our survey believing he handled the Lib Dem response well. Here’s a sample of your comments:

Hard position. Difficult to see how he could improve. Not worth destroying the coalition over

He took too long to make his stance clear, and there was some ambiguity as to what his stance actually was. Eventually, he was clear and right

His rhetoric was very anti-Tory but the substance was more measured.

Nick took two incompatible positions within the course of about 48 hours – he should be careful to avoid repeating this feat again in future.

Although the initial inconsistency was wrong, he took the right line.

Response could have been better, subtle reading may indicate that Nick Clegg behaviour was consistent throughout but that’s not what it looked like.

Started off badly but then improved significantly

Nick managed to claw back some respectability and influence. I wish he’d been negotiating for us.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Overwhelming support for ‘further and faster’ tax-cuts for low-paid

LDV asked: The Coalition is committed to increasing the level at which income tax becomes payable, from its current £7,475 to £10,000 by 2015. The tax-free threshold was expected to rise by about £630 annually. However, in a recent speech Nick Clegg said, “I want the Coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance, because the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point.” Do you support or oppose the income tax allowance being raised to £10,000 as an immediate priority for the Coalition?

97% – Support
2% – Oppose
1% – Don’t know / No opinion

Well, I think that result is fairly definitive: a North Korean-esque 97% of Lib Dem members in our survey back Nick Clegg’s calls for accelerated tax-cuts for the low-paid. Here are some of your comments:

It takes the working poorest out of tax altogether – should be done immediately.

There seems to be little reason to delay doing this immediately. It’s not that we can’t afford it. We choose not to be able to afford it.

However, it would be more progressive to raise the National Insurance thresholds.

Provided we take equal action to recoup the cost through increased crackdowns on tax evasion etc.

We should aim to increase the threshold to £10k as soon as possible and then press for it to be further raised to the level of the minimum wage – after that, bring back the 10p rate up to the level of the “living wage” in each region.

Support – so long as the rise can be afforded without further expansion of the deficit

I support the idea of the minimum wage level being the income tax threshold

It should be the number 1 priority and we should seek to go further.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

LDV asked: The Health and Social Care Bill which will implement radical reforms to the NHS was passed by MPs last September. From what you have seen or heard about the Coalition’s plans for the NHS, do you support or oppose them?

25% – Support
49% – Oppose
26% – Don’t know / No opinion

So, by a two-to-one margin, Lib Dem members in our survey are opposed to the Coalition’s NHS reforms. This is a significant shift in opinion against the Bill since last we asked the question — in September we recorded a slimmer margin of opposition, 43% to 37%. More than a quarter of party members are unsure.

Quite simply, the Coalition has failed to persuade Lib Dem members of the merits of the the NHS reforms (in stark contrast to the also-controversial benefits cap) — so small wonder that the wider public are also unconvinced.

Here’s a sample of your comments:

I back the changes. They’re not perfect but if the BMA is against it it’s usually a sign that it’s a good idea. We need to break up vested interests in the NHS.

The bill appears to accomplish very little. Most of the good and bad parts have been watered down to the point where it is unlikely to change things much.

I chose support, although weakly so. I think the timing of such reforms is wrong. I do not fundamentally object to the private sector having a larger role to play in healthcare provision so long as it is free at the point of need and that the key criterion used is quality rather than cost when care is provided.

PCTs were an inefficient layer of management bureaucracy too far removed from patients. Support for those procuring will be required though to ensure they are equipped with the skills necessary to achieve value for money in obtaining supplies and services.

In general, decent to good ideas that have been lost in a sea of mud-slinging and political vitriol.

We said we wouldn’t reorganise the NHS. What matters is service, not structure. Deeply concerned that there has been an attempt to open the NHS to more private provision.

Mixed feelings. I do not feel that the case for change has been clearly made but the opposition does not seem soundly based either.

Now is not the time to be doing something so overarching. Some bits of the reforms are very good but it’s simply too complex to do whilst abiding by spending constraints.

Of course I support the idea of decentralising decision making. Objection that I’m aware of seems to just be along the lines of “private companies are evil”. As long as a good standard of care is present and the service remains free at the point of need I’m not fussed about who is providing the care. There may be an argument for not doing this at a time of budgetary restraint but I understand why now and not later.

Reforms should be deferred. Reducing the deficit is the top priority & reforms at this stage interfere with that.

With GP commissioning no provider/purchaser split. Will introduce private companies who will when suits undermine local hospitals. Commissioning will create more organisations/bloated bureaucracy than previously. So where are the savings no wonder so many hospitals now facing having to make huge savings/reductions in services. My local hospital now having to find £37million and other local acute hospital/trust mergers to take place to save £237million. What a farce!

I think the whole thing has become such a mess it shld be scrapped. Don’t think there was need anyway for the use of legislation in this way. Changes cld have been effected without it.

The more I understand about this Bill, the less I like it. I am a competition lawyer and I dread to think what the impact of competition will be on the NHS. I suspect that only people like myself will be the winners.

There are many things that could be done to reduce costs in the NHS. Changing the whole structure is not in my view one of them.

Efficiences, yes; reconfiguration, yes; clinical commissioning; yes. This could all have been achieved through much less disruptive reforms, and without giving it all the sheen of privatisation.

I want our manifesto commitments to be implemented – more choice, local accountability – and the HSC bill does neither.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

59% of Lib Dem members back benefits cap at £26,000 or lower

LDV asked: Under the Coalition government’s proposal the cap on benefits will apply to the total sum of all benefits a household receives, including income support, jobseekers allowance, child benefit and housing benefit. The government is setting the maximum at £26,000, the average earnings of a British family after tax. What do you think the maximum amount should be set at?

0% – £10,000 per year or less
2% – £15,000 per year or less
10% – £20,000 per year or less
5% – £23,000 per year or less
42% – £26,000 per year or less
4% – £28,000 per year or less
4% – £30,000 per year or less
1% – £35,000 per year or less
1% – £40,000 per year or less
25% – Not applicable, I don’t think there should be a maximum amount
6% – Don’t know / No opinion

A plurality — 42% — of Lib Dem members back the Coalition’s £26,000 benefits cap, but interestingly a further 17% of our respondents would have gone further than the government: one-in-10 said the cap should have been £20,000 a year. Even so, this places Lib Dem members out of step with the party’s supporters. According to a YouGov poll, 31% of Lib Dem voters would set the cap at £20,000 or lower.

In total, 69% of Lib Dem members in our sample believed there should be a benefits cap. A significant minority, however — one-in-four of those surveyed — rejected the principle of a cap at all. There were a significant number of comments advocating regional variations for the cap in order to reflect the higher private rent costs for those living in London in particular.

However, 54% back Lords amendment to exclude child benefit from cap

LDV asked: The House of Lords voted against the government’s benefit cap, passing an amendment that will exclude child benefit from the £26,000 cap. This means that it would be possible for a family with children to receive more than £26,000 in benefits a year. Do you support or oppose this amendment to the Bill?

54% – Support
39% – Oppose
7% – Don’t know / No opinion

A majority of Lib Dem members agreed with Paddy Ashdown (among other Lib Dem peers) who voted a fortnight ago to amend the Coalition’s benefits cap policy in this way. However, a large minority — four-in-10 members — rejected the Lords’ amendment, with many arguing that it would undermine the principle of the cap. Here’s a flavour of some of the comments received:

I think it’s definitely right to maintain child benefit as a separate entity. Visiting the sins of the parents (if sins they even be) upon the children is plain wrong.

Child Benefit has been around a lot longer than many other benefits. I think there should be a cap for child benefit, but it shouldbe seperate from the rest of the benefits

I would see a case for suppporting this amendment IF the figure of £26,000 without child benefit was reduced appropriately. £26,000 net of tax for a childless household is too much in my view compared to likely earnings for those in work.

I can see the arguments both ways, but when it comes down to it it isn’t the kids’ fault and they shouldn’t suffer.

Those who are responsible and only have the children they can afford to support should not subsidise those who have children that they cannot themselves afford.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

We asked: Would you support or oppose David Laws making a return to government at the next reshuffle?

• Yes – to a cabinet post 58%
• Yes – but only to a non-cabinet post in government 14%
• No – he should not return to the government at the next reshuffle 21%
• Don’t know / No opinion 7%

In total, then, 72% of Lib Dem members in our sample wanted to see David Laws return to a ministerial post in the Coalition government, with most wanting to see him return to the cabinet 18 months after he was forced to resign. However, a significant minority, 21%, opposed his return, at least at the ‘next’ reshuffle (as it then was). You can read a sample of the comments received from members below.

Nick Clegg was asked directly about a return for David Laws in Paul Waugh’s excellent interview for The House magazine — here’s how he replied:

Speaking of possible ministerial reshuffles, would he bring back David Laws at non-cabinet level if needed? “I’m not wildly hierarchical and David certainly isn’t. It’s one of the many things that I like so much about David, he’s a sort of an unusual combination of being a politician but actually quite a modest character, which you don’t find very often in politics. David is not after status. What I would like to see David do is to be close to the centre of power in one shape or form with, ideally, quite a broad view of government policy, because I think he’s got an ability to see the connections between policies – which is quite unusual.”

So though David may not have returned officially to the heart of government in Friday’s reshuffle, we can be pretty sure unofficially he’ll be there or thereabouts regardless.

Those are Nick’s thoughts; here are some of our party members’:

Running the country well is more important than some pretty trivial personal tomfoolery. If he’s the right person for the job, give him the job.

David Laws is an exceptionally capable individual that should be central to our government and its achievements.

No objection to him being in government per se, I’d just rather we kept some of our best people available to be Lib Dems rather than government spokespeople.

A very gifted man, but his ethics and integrity were found to be incompatible with his position.

He does not represent the kind of liberalism I generally support, but he is probably our most intelligent and competent MP and deserves a place at the Cabinet table.

Good man, but I’d like someone less right-wing in the cabinet.

There is no doubt that David is immensely talented and would make a valuable contribution to government. But I would prefer that he remains outside of the government, supporting the Lib Dems in government and looking to the future and the 2015 election.

He is valuable and, writing as an older gay person, I know the fear that some folk have of being “out” – I had this once. He has been punished enough.

His resignation shouldn’t have happened, but I see why he did it. Bring him back.

But much as I would love to see David back in the Cabinet, can we PLEASE have a woman LD Cabinet minister first!!!

We can’t afford to waste talent like his although I’m sure he is playing a major role behind he scenes

David Laws is a clever man who behaved stupidly. He’s paid the price. He’d be an asset in Government – provided he’s not turned Tory-Lite.

Should not return to government until he has been re-elected as an MP.

He’s a talented man but his re-appointment would play badly when the public still regards most politicians as corrupt.

He’s the brightest and the best MP we have. Bring him back!

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Chris Huhne:

How would you rate the performances of Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Very satisfied 15%
Satisfied 40%
Total satisfied = 55%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 17%
Dissatisfied 21%
Very dissatisfied 7%
Total dissatisfied = 28%
Net satisfaction = +27%

In Chris’s final rating by party members — at least for now — he scored a net satisfaction rating of +27%. In a way, not bad, but it’s a big drop from Chris’s best ratings — back in November 2010, he was the top-rated Lib Dem government minister, with a score of +68% (though note we were then rating ‘effectiveness’ rather than ‘satisfaction’, a subtly different question). Here’s how Chris’s ratings have fared while in government:

July 2010: +51%
August 2010: +59%
November 2010: +68%
January 2011: +65%
April 2011: +63%
September 2011: +53%
December 2011: +42%

The drip-drip of bad publicity over the past few months relating to the charges that have now been laid appear to have dented Chris’s popularity among party members — notwithstanding his lauded performance at the Cancun climate change summit in December.

Ed Davey:

How would you rate the performances of Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?

Very satisfied 16%
Satisfied 35%
Total satisfied = 51%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 39%
Dissatisfied 8%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Total dissatisfied = 10%
Net satisfaction = +41%

Ed finishes his time as Lib Dem No. 2 at Vince’s BIS empire with very positive ratings, testament to how he’s pushed through Lib Dem policy on a range of issues while offering a coherent story of liberalism in action. Here’s how his positive ratings have grown over the last 18 months of Coalition, from a relatively poor start, a legacy of what was judged to be a mixed performance as the party’s shadow foreign affairs spokesman before the election:

July 2010: +9%
August 2010: +11%
November 2010: +23%
January 2011: +24%
April 2011: +30%
September 2011: +27%
December 2011: +39%

Ed will start the new role with a lot of goodwill behind him (though more than a few Lib Dems are unhappy that Nick Clegg didn’t take this enforced opportunity to create the first female Lib Dem cabinet minister), but will be very well aware he has big shoes to fill. If he makes a real success of the role, though, he may find journalists starting to ask him if he’d like to be party leader one day.

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 436 responded to the latest survey between 31st January and 3rd February.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Questions we’re asking this month include:

• what you think of the Coalition’s £26k benefits cap;
• whether you back the NHS reforms;
• your views on Scottish independence;
• what you think about Nick Clegg’s speech on tax-cuts for the lowest paid, and about tax-rates for the wealthiest;
• how you think Nick Clegg and David Cameron handled the European summit in December
• how satisfied you are with Nick Clegg as party leader, and leading figures within the Lib Dems;
• and what you think of the Coalition’s performance to date;

It should take no longer than 10 minutes minutes to fill in. All registered members of the Forum should have already been e-mailed with a unique link to take you to the survey. If you haven’t received yours, or if you are signing up to the Forum now, please drop Ryan Cullen a line at

We’ll publish the results in a few days’ time. You can access the results from our previous LDV members surveys by clicking here.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Our surveys are a way of testing members’ views on a variety of hot topics. And as they’ve been running throughout the first 18 months of the Coalition they’re also an interesting record of changing views on how the Coalition is regarded within the party.

If you would like to take part in the LibDemVoice surveys, there are simply two steps you need to follow:
1) Be a current Lib Dem member, and
2) Sign up to LibDemVoice’s members’ forum.
You will then be emailed a unique link to our next survey enabling you to offer your verdict on a range of current matters.

The full archive of our members’ surveys as published on the site can be viewed here.

And I have compiled a Google spreadsheet summarising the results from our Coalition tracker — together with the satisfaction ratings for Lib Dem ministers and other leading party figures — which you can view here.

We’ve always been careful not to make too great claims for the surveys: we simply don’t know how accurately they reflect the views of the Lib Dems’ 60,000 members.

All we can say is that we typically receive over 550 responses from the 1,200+ members subscribed to the Voice’s Forum, making it the largest regular and independent sample of opinion among current party members, and that the results in the past have predicted the winners of the contests for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.

We hope you find the surveys interesting — certainly political journalists are interested in what our members have to say! And, as ever, if you have ideas or suggestions for topics and/or questions you would like to see included please do get in touch: .

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Today we focus on the performances of the leading lights of the Liberal Democrats — those of our MPs in the cabinet, those occupying ministerial positions, and other leading Lib Dems. My LibDemVoice colleague Mark Pack has already provided the highlights of our latest survey, but I know there are completists among you who cannot rest easy until the full figures are revealed…

LDV asked: How would you rate the performances of the following leading Liberal Democrats and government ministers?

Full results are published below, but here’s three key lists for those who want to cut to the chase… (with September 2011 ratings in brackets)

Top 5 Lib Dem performers in the Government:

• Vince Cable +63% (+72%)
• Lynne Featherstone +54% (+46%)
• Steve Webb +51% (+47%)
• Chris Huhne +42% (+53%)
• Norman Baker +39% (+39%)

Bottom 5 Lib Dem performers in the Government:

• Michael Moore +18% (+19%)
• Andrew Stunell +16% (+10%)
• Nick Harvey +15% (+18%)
• Danny Alexander +14% (+16%)
• Paul Burstow +14% (+11%)

As I note each time: “the list stands as a reminder to all our Lib Dem ministers of the value of communicating effectively with party members about the work they’re undertaking on behalf of the party, even if it isn’t making the front pages.” For the record, all Lib Dem government ministers are still showing net positive satisfaction ratings, and have done since the beginning of the Coalition. It’s also noticable that, in the cases of both Andrew Stunell and Paul Burstow, personal satisfaction ratings are higher than in September.

And here’s how other leading Lib Dems score:

• Tim Farron +61% (+70%)
• Simon Hughes +46% (+54%)
• Kirsty Williams +45% (+34%)
• Caroline Pidgeon +33% (+36%)
• Brian Paddick +32% (+48%)
• Willie Rennie +30% (+31%)
• Chris Fox +17% (+21%)
• Fiona Hall +15% (+14%)

As promised, here are the results in full …

Lib Dem cabinet ministers and government ministers:

Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Very satisfied 26%
Quite satisfied 49%
Quite dissatisfied 10%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 13%
Net satisfaction +63% (+72%)

Lynne Featherstone, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) for the Home Office
Very satisfied 23%
Quite satisfied 40%
Quite dissatisfied 6%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 27%
Net satisfaction +54% (+46%)

Steve Webb, Minister of State to the Department for Work and Pensions
Very satisfied 24%
Quite satisfied 35%
Quite dissatisfied 6%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 34%
Net satisfaction +51% (+47%)

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Very satisfied 19%
Quite satisfied 46%
Quite dissatisfied 18%
Very dissatisfied 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 12%
Net satisfaction +42% (+53%)

Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Transport
Very satisfied 12%
Quite satisfied 37%
Quite dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 40%
Net satisfaction +39% (+39%)

Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Very satisfied 12%
Quite satisfied 35%
Quite dissatisfied 6%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 46%
Net satisfaction +39% (+27%)

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister
Very satisfied 21%
Quite satisfied 43%
Quite dissatisfied 18%
Very dissatisfied 11%
Don’t know / No opinion 8%
Net satisfaction +35% (+40%)

The Rt Hon. Lord McNally, Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice
Very satisfied 8%
Quite satisfied 28%
Quite dissatisfied 5%
Very dissatisfied 1%
Don’t know / No opinion 58%
Net satisfaction +30% (+35%)

Sarah Teather, Minister of State for the Department for Education
Very satisfied 13%
Quite satisfied 34%
Quite dissatisfied 13%
Very dissatisfied 7%
Don’t know / No opinion 34%
Net satisfaction +27% (+31%)

Alistair Carmichael, Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Commons
Very satisfied 9%
Quite satisfied 24%
Quite dissatisfied 5%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 60%
Net satisfaction +26% (+20%)

David Heath, Parliamentary Secretary (Deputy Leader) to the Office of the Leader of the Commons
Very satisfied 7%
Quite satisfied 20%
Quite dissatisfied 2%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 70%
Net satisfaction +23% (+21%)

Jeremy Browne, Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Very satisfied 7%
Quite satisfied 26%
Quite dissatisfied 9%
Very dissatisfied 4%
Don’t know / No opinion 53%
Net satisfaction +20% (+14%)

Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland
Very satisfied 5%
Quite satisfied 23%
Quite dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 62%
Net satisfaction +18% (+19%)

Andrew Stunell, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to the Department for Communities and Local Government
Very satisfied 5%
Quite satisfied 28%
Quite dissatisfied 12%
Very dissatisfied 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 51%
Net satisfaction +16% (+10%)

Nick Harvey, Minister of State (Minister for the Armed Forces) for the Ministry of Defence
Very satisfied 4%
Quite satisfied 21%
Quite dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 65%
Net satisfaction +15% (+18%)

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Very satisfied 18%
Quite satisfied 34%
Quite dissatisfied 21%
Very dissatisfied 17%
Don’t know / No opinion 10%
Net satisfaction +14% (+16%)

Paul Burstow, Minister of State for the Department of Health
Very satisfied 8%
Quite satisfied 28%
Quite dissatisfied 13%
Very dissatisfied 9%
Don’t know / No opinion 43%
Net satisfaction +14% (+11%)

Other leading Lib Dems:

Tim Farron, Party President
Very satisfied 36%
Quite satisfied 36%
Quite dissatisfied 8%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 16%
Net satisfaction +61% (+70%)

Simon Hughes, Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons
Very satisfied 19%
Quite satisfied 39%
Quite dissatisfied 9%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 29%
Net satisfaction +46% (+54%)

Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats
Very satisfied 18%
Quite satisfied 30%
Quite dissatisfied 2%
Very dissatisfied 1%
Don’t know / No opinion 49%
Net satisfaction +45% (+34%)

Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the London Assembly
Very satisfied 16%
Quite satisfied 21%
Quite dissatisfied 2%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 59%
Net satisfaction +33% (+36%)

Brian Paddick, Lib Dem candidate for Mayor of London
Very satisfied 13%
Quite satisfied 31%
Quite dissatisfied 9%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 44%
Net satisfaction +32% (+48%)

Willie Rennie, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats
Very satisfied 11%
Quite satisfied 23%
Quite dissatisfied 3%
Very dissatisfied 1%
Don’t know / No opinion 62%
Net satisfaction +30% (+31%)

Chris Fox, Lib Dem chief executive
Very satisfied 7%
Quite satisfied 21%
Quite dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 4%
Don’t know / No opinion 61%
Net satisfaction +17% (+21%)

Fiona Hall, Leader of the UK Lib Dem MEPs
Very satisfied 6%
Quite satisfied 17%
Quite dissatisfied 6%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 69%
Net satisfaction +15% (+14%)

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Here’s some of what the paper wrote about the findings (and, don’t forget, you can catch up on all the survey results here on LibDemVoice):

[A] survey of 564 members by the Liberal Democrat Voice website shows that Mr Clegg’s standing in his own party has recovered a little since his nadir a year ago after the party’s damaging U-turn over university tuition fees. But he has not bounced back to the high ratings he won during the Coalition’s “honeymoon phase”.

Today Mr Clegg’s net satisfaction rating – the difference between the number of people satisfied and dissatisfied with his performance – stands at + 32 per cent. This is higher than the +19 per cent and +17 per cent ratings recorded early last year, but still much lower than the +60 per cent he won in the summer of 2010.

When members were asked which Liberal Democrat minister had the “worst year” in 2011, Mr Clegg came joint top with Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

The minister who made the best impression was Vince Cable, the Business Secretary. He was in the doldrums a year ago after announcing the trebling of tuition fees, when his net satisfaction rating dropped to +8 per cent. Now he is top of the performance league with +63 per cent.

The paper also refers to new research showing that “only one in four people who voted Liberal Democrat at the last election still supports the party”:

Worryingly for the Liberal Democrats, there are fewer signs than after previous elections of the party winning new supporters to replace the voters it has lost. Only 1 per cent of Labour and Conservative voters in 2010 has switched to the Liberal Democrats.

The one ray of hope is that one in four of their backers is now a “don’t know” and could potentially be won back. The party’s other target groups before the next election will be lost tactical voters and “missing new converts”. Strategists say the party will aim to woo low to middle income families and women.

A Liberal Democrat source said last night: “We always knew that by going into coalition with the Conservatives, we would lose some people who voted for us to keep them out. It is a long haul but we think we can win people back by delivering in government.”

This is based on an analysis of YouGov polling data undertaken by my Co-Editor Mark Pack, and was published in his newsletter yesterday. You can read it in full here, and sign-up to receive future issues here. Mark will be writing for the Voice next week about some of the other findings from his research.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

70% back end to free bus pass and TV licences for wealthier pensioners

LDV asked: Nick Clegg has suggested introducing means-testing so that better-off pensioners would no longer be entitled to receive benefits such as free bus passes and television licences. Supporters argue that at a time of financial austerity such benefits for the wealthiest paid by general taxation are unfair. Opponents argue that the principle of universal benefits is important and that means-testing is administratively complex. Which of the following statements comes closest to your own view:

• 70% — I support means-testing for some benefits
• 26% — I oppose means-testing of benefits
• 4% — Don’t know / No opinion

There is substantial support among our sample of party members, it appears, for Nick Clegg’s proposal — aired in December — for wealthier pensioners to lose their entitlement to some universal benefits such as free bus travel and TV licences. Here are a handful of the comments we received from members backing Nick:

There are plenty of pensioners that do not need free bus passes, or winter fuel allowances, but claim them anyway. Means-testing and redistributing the saved money to those who truly need it makes perfect sense.

The older generation holds most of the country’s wealth, while the youngest generation is struggling with student debt and high housing costs. It is plainly wrong that poorer young people should subsidise wealthy older people. We should focus support for pensioners on the one-third of who aren’t wealthy.

Some benefits should be universal as a principle, others should be means-tested but only if that does not cost more than if they remained/were made universal.

It’s absurd that affluent pensioners should get free bus passes and TV licences when they can well afford to pay for them.

A number argued that such benefits should remain universal but be taxed so the most affluent would receive a reduced benefit with little additional administrative complexity.

However, a significant minority, just over one-quarter of respondents, opposed any dilution of universal benefits:

Oppose but for practical reasons rather then on principle. Too complex, bureaucratic and controversial to be worth attempting. Equalise in other ways.

I oppose a) because it would be hugely expensive to means test b) because it would be better to increase people’s pension income to the point where such benefits are unnecessary c) some of the benefits were political bribes in the first place so means testing them is political suicide

Means-testing is always riddled with anomalies. The anomalies usually can’t be accomodated, as they result from the application of means-testing which is to broad a brush to apply to specific issues. What is needed is a properly integrated tax and benefits system. That won’t necessarily be anomaly-free but it will ensure that benefits can be appropriately targeted without paying them to those who don’t need them.

Wealthy pensioners will,almost certainly, have paid more ‘into’ their state pension pot through NI during their working lives. It seems fundamentally unfair to then limit their benefits during retirement. Of course, if the Government were to reform the whole National Insurance system and remove the myth that it’s somehow an investment in the future then it might be another matter.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

We asked the question: “The Liberal Democrats have just appointed a new chief executive, Tim Gordon, to take over from Chris Fox. What do you think should be Tim’s top priorities as party chief executive?”

Here’s a wordle of the 394 responses received:

You can read in full all the responses in our members-only discussion forum here.

And you can read my co-editor Mark Pack’s suggestions for what Tim’s top four priorities should be here.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Huhne and Clegg tie for the award neither would want to win

LDV asked: In your opinion, which Lib Dem government minister has had the worst year?

Unusually for our Voice surveys, this question allowed an unprompted, free-text response, which 385 of our respondents rose to. And here’s what you told us:

1. Chris Huhne — 80 votes
1. Nick Clegg — 80 votes
3. Danny Alexander — 62 votes
4. Vince Cable — 34 votes
5. Paul Burstow — 22 votes
6. Sarah Teather — 21 votes
7. Andrew Stunell — 14 votes

(Note: only Lib Dem ministers who scored double-digit votes are mentioned here.)

They virtually tied in their 2007 contest to become leader of the Liberal Democrats (Nick edged Chris by less than 1%) — but now Messrs Huhne and Clegg have actually tied in joint first place for the Lib Dem minister judged by our sample of party members to have had the worst year.

It’s not hard to understand why.

Chris Huhne has rarely been out of the spotlight this past year thanks to the continuing tussle between the police and CPS about whether he should face criminal charges over an alleged spot of speeding fine dodging. And his customarily sharp-elbowed attacks on his fellow cabinet ministers in the blue corner has divided opinion among some Lib Dems — does such invective show the party in a good or bad light?

Nick Clegg‘s troubles have been more political in nature: the loss of the AV referendum and of 700 councillors in May’s elections was an especially bruising experience for the Lib Dem leader. His response has been a more assertive tone in his public dealings with David Cameron and the Conservatives, initially over the controversial NHS reforms, most recently over David Cameron’s botched Euro negotiations. Nick can at least take some comfort that more voters (33%) think he’s doing a good job than think Ed Miliband is up to the job of Labour leader (32%).

Interestingly, six of the eight Lib Dem ministers who appear on this ‘worst year’ list also scored well in our ‘best year’ list published here yesterday — suggesting, probably not surprisingly, that high profile Lib Dem ministers are more likely to divide opinion even among party members.

The only two ministers who feature solely in the ‘worst year’ list are Paul Burstow and Andrew Stunell, both of whom have piloted tricky Coalition legislation through Parliament (on the NHS and localism, respectively).

Meanwhile four ministers appear solely in the ‘best year’ list — Lynne Featherstone, Steve Webb, Ed Davey and Norman Baker — all of whom are clearly seen by party members to be demonstrably putting liberal values into action within a Coalition government… and communicating that they are doing so effectively.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Vince, Danny and Chris: the Lib Dems’ top trio in government

LDV asked: In your opinion, which Lib Dem government minister has had the best year?

Unusually for our Voice surveys, this question allowed an unprompted, free-text response, which 408 of our respondents rose to. And here’s what you told us:

1. Vince Cable — 67 votes
2. Danny Alexander — 56 votes
3. Chris Huhne — 53 votes
4. Lynne Featherstone — 42 votes
5. Steve Webb — 37 votes
6. Nick Clegg — 27 votes
7. Ed Davey — 17 votes
8. Norman Baker — 11 votes
9. Sarah Teather — 10 votes

(Note: only Lib Dem ministers who scored double-digit votes are mentioned here.)

So Vince Cable walks away with the accolade for the Lib Dem government minister who, according to our sample of party members, has enjoyed the best year. In part, of course, this is because 2011 has been something of a bounce-back for Vince after his fall from grace towards the close of 2010, when his welcome of the Browne Report’s call for tuition fee increases combined with his unguarded remarks about the Murdochs captured by the Telegraph’s sting operation, saw his popularity plummet among party members — as my colleague Mark Pack has already noted here. A year later, and with the Murdochs’ newspaper empire tottering in the wake of the hacking scandal, Vince’s reputation as the party’s top soothsayer is once again burnishing bright.

Perhaps more surprising than Vince’s pole position is Danny Alexander occupying the runner’s-up spot. The position of chief secretary to the treasury at a time of government austerity is scarcely likely to make you the most popular of politicians… and Danny has acted as a lightning rod for many Lib Dem members angry at the Coalition’s budget measures. But this survey shows he has his admirers within the party, too, many of whom spoke of how impressed they’d been by Danny’s deft handling of some of the trickiest government issues, including public sector pensions. And perhaps the fact that the Lib Dems’ own ‘ginger rodent’ clearly doesn’t take himself too seriously has also helped humanise him.

That Chris Huhne comes third will amuse and amaze some non-Lib Dems, after a year which may rank as an annus horribilis for the Lib Dem environment and climate change secretary with continuing speculation about his possible prosecution over that speeding fine. Yet despite this dark cloud hovering above his head, Chris has not been afraid to mount attacks on his Tory colleagues — though unusually in politics he’s chosen to do so to their faces around the cabinet table rather than via off-the-record, whispered briefings… Only in the absurd theatre that is the Westminster Village could such honesty be regarded as evidence of deceit. Above all, though, Chris has started delivering results: in the shape of the green investment bank, promised by the Lib Dems and delivered within the Coalition, and most recently and notably by working with our European partners to achieve agreement at the Durban climate change summit.

However, before Chris smiles too widely at coming third, he should be aware that tomorrow we publish the results of which Lib Dem minister party members think has had the worst year…

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Jeremy Browne, Vince Cable, Ed Davey and Lynne Featherstone are the four Liberal Democrat ministers to have significantly increased their standing in the eyes of party members over this year, according to the surveys of party members carried out by Liberal Democrat Voice four times in the year.

When asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with a range of party figures, members have given this quartet significantly improved ratings across the year. For each, there is a slightly different story to tell.

Jeremy Browne used to be one of the ministers rated most poorly by party members, but has steadily improved his ratings, helped both by his sure-footed ministerial work in 2011 and also by being one of the keener ministers to communicate with party members, as shown by a series of guest posts on Lib Dem Voice during the year. With a year-end net score of +21%, he is still below the net +32% average, but no longer among the lowest rated.

In Ed Davey’s case, he too used to have much lower ratings though more due to being low profile rather than the positive controversy Jeremy Browne has generated. Helped by his own work on modernising the Post Office and regular appearances at local party events, he now has a net rating of +40%, not far off the sort that would put him in the top five. As with Jeremy Browne, he too may have benefited in a survey of Lib Dem Voice readers from recent positive coverage on this site, in this case from myself rather than him, but his ratings had already been improving since the general election.

For Vince Cable the start of 2011 was the nadir of his popularity with members, in the immediate aftermath of the tuition fees controversy. From a net +8% low in our first survey of 2011, Cable is now back to +63% and top of the ratings.

Finally, Lynne Featherstone – always one of the most highly rated Liberal Democrats in our surveys – has had a very high profile year with her equalities brief, pushing many high profile and controversial policies. Although since becoming a minister her blogging, including contributions to this site, has tailed off markedly, she continues to be one of the few front rank Liberal Democrats to communicate regularly via social media.

An honourable mention should also go to Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael who has a role that traditionally is only high profile when it is going wrong. However, thanks to his assiduous and funny use of Facebook, he has continued to see his ratings quietly move up through the year (starting at net +14% and ending at net +27%).

The two biggest fallers in the year are Chris Huhne, still at a net +43% but well down from +65% at the start of the year, and Party President Tim Farron, who likewise still has a very healthy net +60% but is down from +69% in our first survey of 2011.

The top five Liberal Democrats in the December 2011 survey, with their net scores, were:

1. Vince Cable: +63%
2. Tim Farron: +60%
3. Lynne Featherstone: +53%
4. Steve Webb: +51%
5.= Simon Hughes: +45%
5.= Kirsty Williams: +45%

The bottom five Liberal Democrats, with their net scores, are:

1. Nick Harvey: +16% (his scores have been fairly static all year)
2. Fiona Hall: +15% (her scores have been fairly static all year)
3. Andrew Stunell:+15% (his lowest score this year)
4. Danny Alexander: +14% (his lowest score this year)
5. Paul Burstow: +14% (though continuing to recover from his +3% low in early 2011)

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 564 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Mark Pack is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and writes a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

As 2011 comes to an end, Liberal Democrat party members surveyed by Lib Dem Voice continue to back Nick Clegg, being in coalition and the government’s overall record. Support has generally increased a little during the year, but is still well below its levels in the second half of last year before tuition fees dominated the political agenda towards the end of 2010.

For Nick Clegg himself, 65% of members said they are satisfied with his performance as party leader, with the net score of +32% confirming the recovery from the lows of +19% and +17% early in 2011. The recovery still has some way to go to return to the net scores of over +60% he scored in the summer of 2010 however.

Just under two-thirds (64%) also think the party is on the right track, with the net score of +37% being typical for the scores through the year, though again down on the summer of 2010.

By contrast, approval for the coalition government’s overall record to date is, at a net +41%, nearly back to the levels of 2010 save for the immediate post-coalition survey. Similarly, 81% of party members support the party being in coalition with the Conservatives, with a net score of +68% also only slightly off the 2010 levels.

Given the recent olive branches towards the Liberal Democrats from senior Labour figures such as Douglas Alexander and Ed Balls, the views that party members have of Ed Miliband is of increasing relevance. So far, they are not impressed. Only 9% think he is doing well; 87% think he is doing badly. David Cameron comes out much better: 51% think he is doing well and 43% doing badly, although of course in both cases that is not necessarily a reflection of the degree to which party members agree with what they are doing.

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 564 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Mark Pack is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and writes a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

According to our latest survey of paid-up party members, Liberal Democrats want to see major changes to pension arrangements in the UK. Nearly three-quarters want to see universal benefits such as free television licenses and bus passes replaced with means-testing so that the wealthiest pensioners do not receive the same benefits as everyone else.

There is also strong support for changing public sector pension arrangements, with party members backing the government’s original proposals by a similar margin and with just under two-thirds opposing the public sector strike held on the issue. (The survey took place before news of the revised offer this week.)

However, despite those views on the strike, there is a 2:1 majority against making it harder for strikes to be called by requiring 50% of union members, rather than 50% of those voting, to back a strike.

Here are the questions in full:

Nick Clegg has suggested introducing means-testing so that better-off pensioners would no longer be entitled to receive benefits such as free bus passes and television licences. Supporters argue that at a time of financial austerity such benefits for the wealthiest paid by general taxation are unfair. Opponents argue that the principle of universal benefits is important and that means-testing is administratively complex. Which of the following statements comes closest to your own view:

I support means-testing for some benefits: 70%
I oppose means-testing of benefits: 26%

The Coalition Government is seeking changes to public sector pensions that will require public sector workers to work for longer and contribute more to their pensions. The government say that with people living longer the changes are necessary to make public sector pensions affordable in the long term. The trade unions say that changes have already been made that make current pensions sustainable. Do you support or oppose the government’s changes to public sector pensions?

I support the changes: 71%
I oppose the changes: 20%

Many trade unions voted to go on strike on November 30th in protest against proposed changes to public sector pensions, which will require public sector workers to work for longer and make higher contributions to their pensions. Do you support or oppose this strike action over changes to public sector pensions?

I support the strike action: 23%
I opposed the strike action: 65%

Trade unions must hold a ballot of their members before taking strike action and need the support of a majority of those voting to take action. In some cases, however, only a minority of workers vote in the ballot, meaning only around one-quarter or one-third of workers back the strike. Some people have suggested that the law should be changed so that a union can only go on strike if over 50% of its members back the strike, rather than 50% of those voting. Would you support or oppose this change?

Support – unions should require the support of 50% of all eligible members to take strike action: 32%
Oppose – it should be enough for unions to get the support of 50% of those voting: 60%

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 564 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

* Mark Pack is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and writes a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Lib Dem members give thumbs-up (mostly) to Osborne’s autumn statement

Two weeks ago, the Chancellor George Osborne updated MPs on the state of the economy and the government’s future plans in his Autumn Statement as the Office for Budget Responsibility published its latest growth and borrowing forecasts.

LDV asked: Do you support or oppose the following policies announced by the Chancellor?
[NB: results below are arranged in order of net popularity]

Raising the levy on bank profits

Strongly support 64%
Support 28%
No view 4%
Oppose 3%
Strongly oppose 1%
Net support: +88%

Reducing the increases in rail fares to 1% above inflation, rather than 3%

Strongly support 43%
Support 45%
No view 7%
Oppose 4%
Strongly oppose 1%
Net support: +83%

Spending £1bn on subsidising work placements for young unemployed people

Strongly support 46%
Support 40%
No view 7%
Oppose 5%
Strongly oppose 2%
Net support: +79%

Increasing the state pension age to 67 by 2026

Strongly support 41%
Support 44%
No view 5%
Oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 3%
Net support: +75%

Spending money on 35 new road and rail improvement schemes

Strongly support 33%
Support 50%
No view 9%
Oppose 6%
Strongly oppose 2%
Net support: +75%

Increasing out-of-work benefits in line with inflation

Strongly support 30%
Support 46%
No view 11%
Oppose 11%
Strongly oppose 3%
Net support: +62%

Following a two year pay freeze, limiting pay rises for public sector workers to 1% for two more years

Strongly support 18%
Support 44%
No view 8%
Oppose 23%
Strongly oppose 8%
Net support: +31%

Cancelling the planned 3p rise in fuel duty in January

Strongly support 22%
Support 26%
No view 14%
Oppose 25%
Strongly oppose 12%
Net support: +11%

Giving a £50 rebate on water bills to people living in the South-West

Strongly support 8%
Support 15%
No view 47%
Oppose 20%
Strongly oppose 9%
Net support: -6%

Increasing the discount for people buying their council house to 50%

Strongly support 4%
Support 11%
No view 19%
Oppose 34%
Strongly oppose 33%
Net support: -52%

Overall there was strong support among our sample of Lib Dem members for most of the key measures in the Chancellor’s autumn statement. Two policies which did not find favour were (1) the £50 water bill rebate for those living in the south-west, probably because the relief is targeted to a region but not according to income/wealth (and besides almost half expressed no view on it); and (2) increasing the discount for people buying their council house, an overwhelmingly unpopular idea among Lib Dems at a time of high and increasing shortages of social housing.

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 560 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

62% back Coalition’s deficit policy

LDV asked: Thinking about the government’s economic policies, which of the following best reflects your view?

• 62% – Borrowing more at a time when we already owe so much will simply make matters worse, as the country will have to pay back even more money in the longer term. We have to bring the debt and the deficit under control even if it has some painful effects for the economy in the short term.
• 22% – The government’s spending cuts and tax rises are hurting the economy. It should cut taxes, and/or cut spending less fast, even if that means we go on borrowing more for longer – because given how much we already owe, borrowing an extra few billion pounds cannot do much more harm.
• 12% – Neither
• 4% – Don’t know / No opinion

Overall there is strong support within our sample of Lib Dem members for the Coalition’s deficit-reduction strategy, with almost two-thirds of members broadly backing it.

Of the 12% who opted for ‘neither’ there were a variety of responses, but the most common alternatives put forward were (1) the Coalition needs to cut some public spending, but should not be afraid to increase investment in infrastructure which will boost the economy and deliver longer-term economic benefits; (2) a more radical re-shaping of public spending is needed (eg, scrap Trident); (3) there is scope to increase much further wealth taxes which could lessen public spending cuts; and (4) economic policy should be based on pragmatism, and adjusted to the economic data.

60% say yes to post-2015 cuts to eliminate the deficit

LDV asked: As a result of reduced growth forecasts, it now seems unlikely the Coalition Government will achieve its aim of eliminating the deficit over the lifetime of this parliament. Danny Alexander has indicated that the Liberal Democrats will probably need to go into the next election in 2015 promising nearly £30bn more austerity for a future government to balance the books. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Eliminating the deficit must remain a top priority, even if that means the Liberal Democrats have to commit to post-2015 cuts at the next general election.”

• 60% – I agree
• 32% – I disagree
• 8% – Don’t know / No opinion

By a 2:1 margin, then, Lib Dem members believe it is important that the party holds steadfast to the Coalition’s stated priority for the next government to balance the books. However, it was also clear from the comments that members felt it was crucial that (1) the Lib Dems and Tories contest the next election as fully independent parties, and (2) the way in which the party chooses to eliminate the deficit will almost certainly differ significantly from the Tories’ manifesto choices. As one member noted in the comments, “This doesn’t mean we need to commit to the same fiscal position as the Tories. Just that we, and all parties, need to admit the reality of the situation.” In addition, a number of comments noted that, over three years away from the next general election, we cannot know now what the priorities in 2015 will be.

• Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 560 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 9th and 13th December.
• Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
• The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll

Questions we’re asking this month include:

• what you think of the Coalition’s deficit-reduction policies;
• whether Lib Dems should commit to further post-2015 public spending cuts;
• if you agree with Nick Clegg’s support for means-testing some universal benefits;
• your views on public sector pension reform…
• … and on the recent public sector strikes;
• how satisfied you are with Nick Clegg as party leader, and leading figures within the Lib Dems;
• what you think of the Coalition’s performance to date;
• your chance to nominate LibDemVoice’s ‘Liberal of the Year’; and
• which Lib Dem ministers you think have had the best / worst year.

It should take no longer than 10 minutes minutes to fill in. All registered members of the Forum should have already been e-mailed with a unique link to take you to the survey. If you haven’t received yours, or if you are signing up to the Forum now, please drop Ryan Cullen a line at

We’ll publish the results in a few days’ time. You can access the results from our previous LDV members surveys by clicking here.