A look back at the polls (1/2): June

We tend not to be too poll-obsessed here at LDV – of course we look at them, as do all other politico-geeks, but viewed in isolation no one poll will tell you very much beyond what you want to read into it. Looked at over a reasonable time-span and, if there are enough polls, you can see some trends.

Here, in chronological order, are the results of the eight polls published in June:

Tories 42%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 21% – ICM/Sunday Telegraph (8th June)
Tories 45%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 20% – Populus/Times (10th June)
Tories 45%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 16% – MORI, unpublished (13th June)
Tories 43%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 19% – ComRes/Independent (15th June)
Tories 47%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 18% – YouGov/Sunday Times (15th June)
Tories 45%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 20% – ICM/Guardian (25th June)
Tories 46%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 15% – YouGov/Telegraph (27th June)
Tories 46%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 18% – ComRes/Independent (28th June)

Which gives us an average rating for the parties in June as follows, compared with May’s averages:

Tories 45% (+1%), Labour 26% (-1%), Lib Dems 18% (n/c)

Perhaps the most notable feature of June’s polling is how it re-inforces the message which has been starting to emerge: the Tories comfortably in the mid-40%s, and Labour stuck in the 25-28% range. The smallest lead the Tories had over Labour in June was 16% (ICM); the largest was 22% (YouGov).

The picture is a little more mixed for the Lib Dems, owing yet again to the disparity in polling methodologies between the competing companies – with ICM, as is traditional, giving the party its best ratings, of 20-21%, with YouGov and Mori showing the party at 15-18%.

As there’s been quite a lot of self-abuse on the pages of Lib Dem Voice in the aftermath of the Henley by-election, I thought it would be worth looking at Lib Dem performances in June of years gone by to provide a direct comparison. Here goes:

June 1992: 15%
June 1993: 24%
June 1994: 21%
June 1995: 15%
June 1996: 15%
June 1997: 13%
June 1998: 14%
June 1999: 16%
June 2000: 15%
June 2001: 19%
June 2002: 20%
June 2003: 20%
June 2004: 20%
June 2005: 21%
June 2006: 19%
June 2007: 17%
June 2008: 18%

I’ve highlighted in bold those years which are in the equivalent stage of the electoral cycle to where we are now (ie, three years after a general election). Looked at over this range, the Lib Dems are doing better in 2008 than the party was prior to the 1997 and 2001 general elections; a little down on where we were before 2005.

Of course this approach averages out a lot of variables, not the least of which is that the Tories are currently polling higher than they previously have during the 1992-2008 period – and most Lib Dem seats have to be defended against the Tories. Still, looking at the party’s historical polling average does help contextualise some of the doom-mongering currently being put about by worried supporters and delighted foes alike.

One hypothetical, tangential thought to conclude… If there had been a blogosphere in 1994-95, in the aftermath of Mr Blair’s election as Labour leader when Lib Dem support slumped from high-20%s to mid-teens, what would have been the reaction? Would Paddy Ashdown have been given the time and space to lead the party into the ’97 election and double our number of MPs? Or would there have been a tumult of blog/media-inspired panic? As I say, just a thought.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Polls.
Advert

11 Comments

  • Stephen no panic, no one wanting to change the leader or front bench team at all.
    Rather a change in tactics and direction of how we fight elections, big or small and thats much harder to sort then a new leader.
    If as mark points out we simply roll on as we have been doing since 97 then we could be in for a whopping in the south come 2010.
    So I agree with Mark, lets face the problem head on, lets address the problems, find solutions and get on with it.
    Endless debate and navel gazing is what our opponents would love, so lets not give them the satisfaction.

    Change is needed no doubt, but lets get on and do it. Looking back is good for a benchmark but we must look forward, and not be tied by the baggage that history sometimes brings.

  • “Of course this approach averages out a lot of variables, not the least of which is that the Tories are currently polling higher than they previously have during the 1992-2008 period – and most Lib Dem seats have to be defended against the Tories.”

    Indeed.

    As you have the data at your fingertips, maybe you could post the figures for the Tory lead over the Lib Dems at equivalent points in the last few electoral cycles.

  • At last a thread bare of vitriol. Mark makes a relevant point as to the Lib Dem Tory balance. As one contested the ’83 & ’87 campaigns, was actively involved nationally in the ’92 & ’97 campaigns and a by-election campaigner since Sutton & Cheam I’ll share an observation or two. Tory revivals are challenging for Liberals. In 1970 the Libs were wiped out and we fell back in ’79. However those “blue chums” rubbing their hands with glee should pause a moment. The underlying strength of the Lib Dems lies in popular MPs and local community activists. There are vastly more of both now than it the ’70s, ’80s or ’90s.

    As a Constituency Chair in an LD/Con fight I’m demanding far more work from my team. In the last few weeks we’ve collected self completed survey forms from 1,000 houses. They show a hardening of the Tory vote at about 25%. Labour were never strong and have vanished to the same levels of support as the UKIP/Green/BNP votes at 2-3% – rather as Henley. We’re at 18%.

    The numerate will have spotted that 50% of voters are missing. Half of these are genuinely undecided/disinterested. The rest split 2:1 between LD or Con and LD or Lab.

    Assuming we do a resonable job of pushing the LD/Labs our way then the LD/Cons and voting “undecideds” will define who wins in our patch.

    My thesis is that in LD held seats and closer targets than mine, the same appliesn but our under-lying position is rather better.

    Mark wasn’t part of the ’97 campaign. Then our issue was how to avoid “change” voters switching straight to Lab in seats that the Lib Dems could win/hold. We called it the “Man Utd effect” – I want to back the champions and not my local team. Unfortunately in too many seats we failed in that ground war; Wells and North Wiltshire are both good examples. However the hard work and target strategy paid off in many more.

    This UK “change” mood is with is again. The same question applies but with the Blues rather than Reds.

    In Paddy we had a man who captured part of that moment. In Blair, Labour had a leader and platform that encapsulated it. In Nick we have our Paddy, and more.

    There’s absolutley no room for complacency but the evidence of Henley, May’s elctions in strong Lib Dem areas, the polls and on the ground work is that the deal the elctorate did with Blair has not as yet been done with Cameron. The Conservatives no this.

    So the Lib Dems have a terrific opportuinity to secure a Parliamentary pressence on an unimaginable scale when thinking back to 1970.

    We also have chances to build the liberal policy agenda and in bringing our campaigning approaches up-to-date.

    We have 20-25 Labour-held seats in striking distance to win, more than at any election in 80 years, a strong front bench and a professional team. Much hard policy, communications and campaigning work lies ahead.

    The prize of a liberal Government is available. There should be no compalcency, no defeatism but a real urgency to push the Party to embrace the opportunity. I for one am up for that!.

  • liam

    That seemed to start off quite sensibly, but it then veered off into “go back to your constituencies …” territory.

    The questions that need to be asked are:
    (1) what swing would be required for us to take 20-25 seats from Labour and
    (2) what swing do the current opinion polls indicate – and bear in mind that Labour is already at record levels of unpopularity.

  • My reading of the polls to date is as follows:
    LD – doing well in holding vote in held and target seats but slipping away in the rest therefore it appears we are doing badly in the polls.

    Con – started off massing tory votes in tory seats and gaining in the polls but wouldn’t had much effect on the no of MPs, until Brown was un-masked and then the Tories started picking up Lab voters putting them in a good position for the next election.

    I’m currently predicting a good election for the tories and the LDs exceeding pundits expectations by holding and gaining seats against all parties. But dropping back in many other seats so depressing the national share of the vote for the LDs

  • Mark Littlewood wrote:
    “The party now has around 62,000 members. this compares with a membership of 58,500 for the SDP at the time of the merger and – I think – about 120,000 for the LibDems.”

    And wouldn’t that imply membership has decreased by another 4% or so since the leadership election 7 months ago?

    That rate of loss would be on a par with the 10% decrease during Ming Campbell’s 18 months as leader.

  • Mark,

    The decline in membership for all Parties reflects both the increased volatility of the electorate and the lack of big issues that define/divide the Parties. Indeed these elements reinforce each other. This volatility/disillusion fuels the rise of fringe Party votes as the Lib Dems (and perhaps now both Plaid & the SNP) become more “establishment” by running things.

    It also has enabled multi-Party politics to grow in the UK. Look back to 1979. The battleground was overwhelmingly Lab v Con barring a few dozen seats with Liberals & Nationalists in real contention in the Celtin fringes, plus Ulster. Now there are 150 seats where the battle features the LDs or Nats against Lab or Con.

    There will be ebbs and flows of support but wider societal changes will see the continued growth of multi-party politics and more Constituencies that end up being fought between Parties other than “the big two”

    At the same time the sophistication and professionalism of the non “big two” has developed dramatically.

    The 80s saw record Lib & SDP memberships and votes but also two very frustrating elections (ask any of us that fought them!) A lack of focus and effective target work saw huge national votes wasted as they delivered only a couple of dozen seats.

    There are LD & Nat Councillors not just present in Cities, Boroughs and Shires but running them. The resource and credibility that brings is dramatic. Again the trend in the last 30 years is one of sustained increases for these Parties and the smaller ones. I see little that will change that, while accepting there will be less good local elections particularly for the LDs from time to time.

    All of this progress would be greatly enhanced by the development of a clear positionioning for the LIb Dems at the next GE. As you know only too well it is not easy to get sustained, positive media coverage outside of the requirements of the Representation of the People Act.

    Perhaps those of us with longer memories can see a little more clearly that while these are challenging times there are many plus points. We have an excellent new leader, a strong front bench team, good organisation that will be strengthened by the Party adopting the Reform Commission proposals and very real prospects of another MP advance in 2010.

  • Others can probably improve on this analysis, but by my reckoning 25-30 LD gains from Labour needs uniform 8-9% swing, and requires us to gain seats like East Lothian [which, with due respect, I doubt is on many lists !!].

    Our losses to the Tories on a uniform swing mount up as follows:

    1% 5 seats
    2% 4 more (=9)
    3% 2 (11)
    4% 2 (13)
    5% 4 (17)
    6% 5 (22)
    7% 6 (28)
    8% 2 (30)
    9% 6 (36)
    10% 4 (40)

    Make of the figures what you will !

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarGeoffrey Dron 18th Aug - 12:24am
    To get a GNU, needs a successful VONC against the current government. Getting even three Tory names to support the motion would be a major...
  • User AvatarChris Key 17th Aug - 10:17pm
    Simon Hebditch - superb analysis and totally agree about falling into a trap. We should have given the idea a circumspect welcome without committing to...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 17th Aug - 10:03pm
    @Dilettante Eye “Social disobedience”, “Civil Disorder”? Surely that could equally happen in a No Deal worst case scenario? And you know who would get the...
  • User AvatarChristian 17th Aug - 9:55pm
    Jo Swinson should double down now and call out Corbyn for not putting the country first. She should say his recklessness risks a damaging no...
  • User AvatarAndy 17th Aug - 9:43pm
    Jo Swinson has thrown a wrench in the works by challenging Corbyn to prove he's got the numbers, but can she show the votes for...
  • User AvatarRobin Bennett 17th Aug - 9:40pm
    This is a helpful article. I hope and pray for HK's status to remain undisturbed and, like David Warren, that democracy will spread into China....
Sun 18th Aug 2019
Sat 24th Aug 2019
Thu 29th Aug 2019
Mon 9th Sep 2019