Final debate polls put Cameron ahead, but floating voters choose Clegg

All the post-debate polls are in, and four out of five are giving David Cameron a win, with Clegg tied in first place in one, and in second place in three. Brown is last in all but one:

    YouGov: Cameron 41%, Clegg 32%, Brown 25%.
    ComRes: Cameron 35%, Clegg 33%, Brown 26%.
    Populus: Cameron 38%, Clegg 38%, Brown 25%.
    ICM: Cameron 35%, Clegg 27%, Brown 29%.
    Angus Reid: Cameron 36%, Clegg 30%, Brown 23%.

Well, I guess seeing as Clegg was judged to have won the first two debates it was only fair that Cameron should have a consolation prize 🙂

For me, it was a score draw, and I do wonder how far the narrow win for Cameron in the post-debate polls reflects more settled party preferences. As Andrew Rawnsley tweeted:

Early post-debate polls (DC 1, NC 2, GB 3) reflecting party positions in national polls. Minds being made up?

It was certainly a better, more convincing performance from Cameron than in his first (disastrous) performance, or his second improved debate. Brown was less good tonight than in earlier debates – relatively speaking, I mean – less empathetic, more dogmatic, still just as tired.

Clegg was under attack far more than in the first debate, but withstood the pressure well; his continuing calls for parties to work together better resonates with the public far more than it does with cynical politicos and hacks.

It will be the headline ‘who won?’ results which get the media salivating, but perhaps the more significant result is to find out what undecided, floating voters thought: they, after all, are the ones who will decide the election. The only analysis I’ve seen so far – from Angus Reid – suggests that they broke decisively in Clegg’s favour:


    Amongst Undecided Voters: Clegg 37%, Cameron 25%, Brown 22%, Not sure 16%

Finally, two polls published tonight:

    YouGov in The Sun … CON 34%(nc), LAB 27%(nc), LIB DEM 28%(-3)
    Angus Reid in the Economist … CON 33%(+1), LAB 23%(nc), LIB DEM 30%(-3)

There’s still no change to Anthony Wells’ UK Polling Report’s ‘poll of polls’:

    CON 34%, LAB 27%, LIB DEM 29%

Wll tonight shake things up? Or have things settled into a pattern? The next few days will tell us. Oh, and the resul on 6th May.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in General Election and Polls.
Advert

46 Comments

  • The hold steady. But we could have perhaps have won outright if we picked up a fair number of Tories, and there’s scope in the manifesto to do that. We’re the ones who are being honest and serious about how to tackle the immigration problem, we’re the ones who can properly deal with problem pupils – by reducing class sizes not expelling the pupils to the hinterlands – we’re the ones who can deal with crime by supporting programmes shown to decrease recidivism rather than locking criminals away in prison and treating them as if they aren’t part of society. We have the economic proposals which can produce real growth, not just growth in the accounts of bankers in the City of London but real growth in high tech industry, boosted by increases in scientific research spending and investment in ‘weatherising’; the low-skill trade of the 21st century, working with our friends in Europe while the Conservatives have to worry about whether their fringe-group allies are going to do anything overtly homophobic. Libel reform was never mentioned, civil liberties went untouched and the point that tax breaks provide a genuine incentive for the long term unemployed to get a job was left understated. Cameron was never hit on the fact his policies would force single parents to take jobs three hours from where they live or else give up benefits, or that a problem pupil thrice expelled would probably be doomed to poverty /for life/. Nick did great, but he could have done a lot better. Still a week to go.

  • You say Clegg won the first two and Cameron only narrowly won this one. You are wrong. The average of five polls for the second debate showed Clegg winning by 0.8%. So a fairer assessment (remember Lib Dems are meant to be big on fairness) would be Clegg wins one (albeit big due to novelty), Cameron wins one and one is tied.

  • I felt Cameron came across as ” the same old Tory”, all that talk about cutting benefit for job seekers.
    It’s back to the 80s, a government which creates mass unemployment and then blames the unemployed.

  • One thing the party might want to do is commission an AV poll; not a poll about STV but a poll with an order of preference included. We’d win by a landslide and it would help publicize the case for electoral reform. Just a thought.

  • Andrew Suffield 30th Apr '10 - 4:38am

    Polling with preference ballots is an underdeveloped science. We don’t have a firm grasp of how to correctly weight and extrapolate such polls from small samples. As such, you need a huge and expensive sample, and we’re still not sure quite how accurate the result will be.

  • Cameron was trying to do three things yesterday:

    – hold his core vote (tick)
    – appeal to UKIP waverers (tick)
    – draw back some of our new found support (partial tick)

    The Tories have calculated that with Labour slumping ot third, 37% or so will see them home with a majority. The likelihood is that they are there or thereabouts.

    Consequently our aim should be to raise this fear, and Labour’s slump, to consolidate our narrow second in votes to a larger gap by which we are the “official and constructive opposition” in the next Parliament.

    Not a bad outcome if it happens.

  • Right, thank dog that’s the presidential debates out of the way, now we can have a proper campaign. I suggest the first priority should be reminding voters that there is more to the Lib Dems than Nick Clegg, if for no other reason than it’ll also remind them that there’s more to the Tories than that nice presentable Mr Cameron.

  • Terry Gilbert 30th Apr '10 - 8:55am

    Sun readers online poll gave it to Clegg with 50%. http://www.sunvote.co.uk/

  • Interestingly, the total percentages in each of the polls is wide ranging from 89% Angus Reid to 101% Populus. Was the YouGov poll taken before the end of the debate – I thought NC’s closing statement was some way the most inspirational.

    The Angus Reid finding on undecided voters is supported by the Guardian ICM poll – on the Guardian website – is also reporting that of the (small number), the LibDems are benefitting most from the (small number) switching parties following the debate.

    Terry – looked at your link but couldn’t find the 50% you quoted.

  • Terry Gilbert 30th Apr '10 - 9:23am

    Sun readers online poll no longer on their home page, but you can link to it at

    http://www.sunvote.co.uk/cms/politics/117449/who_do_you_think_won_the_final_televised_leaders_debate

  • Ruth Bright 30th Apr '10 - 9:23am

    It all became a bit repetitive because of the repetitive questions – immigration, immigration, immigration. So frustrating that in the so-called ‘Mumsnet’ election Cameron seems to have got clean away with policies to narrow down Sure-Start, introduce top-up nursery fees etc.

    The Lib Dem policy cupboard is a bit bare for parents of pre-school children as the idea of funded childcare from 18 months is only an aspiration – nonetheless Clegg is a natural when talking about families and more ‘Mumsnet’
    debate questions would have worked greatly to his advantage.

  • I get a bit frustrated by policy on immigration. Nick is trying to explain a complex policy, when people understandably want the reassurance of simple answers. In reality despite the Conservatives promises to be tough on immigration their policy of cutting public sector jobs by not filling vacances is likely to quickly reduce the efficency (if you can call it that) of the Home Office and UKBA to deal with illegal migration -despite their committment to develop a Border Police Force. Secondly both Labour and Conservatives want to pull out of bits of the Common European Asylum System, something which has contributed to a reduction of repeat asylum claims across Europe including in the UK. Thirdly both labour and Conservatives have used migration amnesties when in government to clear backlogs caused by the complex systems they have created for immigration and asylum – they have just never admitted it!

    The LD policy of transferring resources away from chasing long term illegal migrants (10 years plus) who are settled here and probably the courts wont allow to be deported is a recognition of reality. Transferring freed up resources to bolster the borders and attack the traffickers and smugglers is absolutely the right priority. So I was frustrated that Nick sounds defensive on immigration. Otherwise job well done. He has even won me over on Trident!

  • I agree that the convergence of the snapshot polls with the national polls is likely a sign of “minds being made up” already among those who had already been following the debate.

    What is good for Clegg is that among people who havent been following the election much (i.e. are seeing hi for the first time) and among undecideds, he is still coming out on top in the debates. This is important because a lot of people who didnt see the first two debates will have watched BBC1, and for them Cleggmania will just be starting.

    Agree on the “amnesty”. Actually the best defence of it is that it would allow the authorities to break into the knowing and criminal use of illegal workers by employers. The thing that hurts the self-employed and small businesses the most is when they are hugely undercut by others using illegal workers. The way to sell the “amnesty” is to point out that when these illegal workers come forward to claim residency, they can be made to confess up all the places they were illegally employed. That will allow the police to put those bosses behind bars, and make the competition fair again.

  • Terry Gilbert 30th Apr '10 - 10:07am
  • Anthony Aloysius St 30th Apr '10 - 10:12am

    For me the most depressing moment came after the question about why the parties couldn’t be honest about cut in public spending.

    Somehow it ended up with Cameron saying how easy it would be to save the £6bn needed to fund his National Insurance cut, Brown saying how disastrous it would be to cut £6bn this year rather than next, and Clegg saying he would cut income tax by £700 a head.

    Considering that the IFS says the proposals of all the parties imply as yet unspecified spending cuts of £35bn upwards, this kind of thing is an insult to the intelligence.

  • I am pleased to see that “The Times” was honest enough to put the Populus poll on its front page this morning. Yes, there is at least one Fleet Street editor who has not forgotten that the function of newspapers is to report news. The scatological diatribe bellowed down the phone by Rupe will no doubt ring in his ears all day.

  • In contrast to many others I thought Clegg did reasonably well on immigration (given that it’s an unpopular albeit rational policy) but really floundered on VAT on new homes. Not only did he seem to avoid the question by repeating his previous response, when he finally got round to VAT all we got was unsupported waffle. Now this may be a very sensible, hugely progressive policy but that’s not how it would have come across to the average voter. Overall, Clegg avoided any obvious disasters but there’s no doubt his performance dipped again and he came over as uncertain and naive on a number of issues.

  • I thought Nick Clegg was sailing in the debate until the moment (to my recollection, I haven’t seen a replay) that David Cameron,genuinely rattled for perhaps the only time by Gordon Brown over his assertion that the Tories’ plan to cut corporation tax for the banks would starve regional investment, suddenly switched his fire. Nick Clegg had apparently supported the Euro until last year and if he had had his way we would be cutting hospital budgets and firing nurses to pay for Greece’s deficit! It was preposterous, of course, but it threw Clegg on to the back foot and there was a resigned look of exasperation as though he had seen it coming but couldn’t really refute the charge. His team didn’t give him a new line on an amnesty for immigrants, either, and they must have seen it coming. Most voters have heard his line on gang masters by now and many floating voters, I fear, were crying out for him to say something about the effect of central/eastern European immigration on domestic wages and employment , but answer came there none. He did, however, manage to extract an admission of sorts,eg silence, from Cameron that 80% of what he was proposing on immigration was hot air, but by then his own balloon had stopped rising. As for VAT on new homes, I agree with what Rod implied – he should have either committed to it or changed the subject.

  • The rebuttal on VAT for new homes is that it is perfectly obvious that the determinant of house prices is the availability of mortgage finance, not the cost of build. That is exactly why we just had a) a massive bubble fuelled by debt financing, and b) a crash caused by the drying up of finance.

  • Matthew Huntbach 30th Apr '10 - 12:28pm

    The immigration stuff ought to have been more thoroughly game-played, because it was obvious this was going to come up, but Nick handled it in a way that suggested he was thinking “Gosh, what did they have to bring that up for?” and just fumbled.

    The housing one, as I have said elsewhere, was very weak. Yes I know “making more use of empty homes” sounds good, and more council houses will play better than used to be thought the case (if they are so bad, why the long waiting lists?), but “change one bedroom flats above shops to family accommodation”? Come on, we have one-bedroom flats because that’s what the market asks for. Housebuilders will build whatever provides most profit. What was missed out here was a thorough analysis of all the way the whole mortgage-funded boom was fool’s gold. Now’s the time to say that, and it wasn’t said. Cameron was allowed to get away with the usual “build more houses” line, without (1) how do you stop them becoming gambling chips in the next boom and bust? (2) Where? This one goes on and on, because Cameron’s lot are the first to protest if it actually comes to building new houses in their backyards, or rather in the impressive sweeping country views form their mansion windows. The rest of this country’s the same, we will all sign up to “build new houses” but none of us wants them near us. Especially if they are (as they must be) council houses.

    I heard some stuff about science and technology to create new jobs and revive the economy. As I work as a university lecturer in a technological subject, I would be very happy to let Nick or anyone else know why the current government’s policies have been bone-headedly wrong on science and technology education. I wish someone in public debate had a clue on this, but no-one has, though ask anyone with my job and they’ll be happy to tell you.

    I thought Nick Clegg’s closing speech was crap, despite Martin Kettle’s praising it in the Guardian. The closing speech was the last word. It wasn’t in answer to any question or debating point, so it could and should have been well prepared. So actually here was the opportunity to be Churchillian. What would have worked here would have been a rousing speech, not about Nick, not about the Liberal Democrats, but about Britain. About the difficult times this country faces, and how we must all pull together to get it back on its feet after 30 years of moving in the wrong direction economically, and how that will hurt but the hurt must be shared fairly with those most able to bear it taking the most. Instead we got a rather weak “vote for me, I’m different”. It looked and sounded like a politician being a politician rather than a real leader of this country.

  • Gosh, you sound like you’re on a bit of a downer today Matthew! I thought the closing speech was good, though not as good as last week’s. But an important thing to remember is that we shouldnt assume everyone who was watching had seen the previous ones and so needed something different. In fact, with viewers back up at 8million, there were lots of new viewers who needed to hear the standard message.

  • Andrew Suffield 30th Apr '10 - 2:09pm

    the Conservatives […] policy of cutting public sector jobs by not filling vacances

    You know, I’m surprised nobody’s called them on this one. I don’t know if it’s universal, but all the civil service and local government jobs around here are already advertised as “internal applicants only”. Obviously, “not filling vacancies” is not going to reduce headcount, it’s just going to stop internal movement and slow down promotions.

  • Terry Gilbert 30th Apr '10 - 2:19pm

    Yes that’s a good point Andrew – I’m wondering if the Deputy Head (who resigned last week, and is the only male member of staff) at my child’s primary would be replaced under the Conservatives’ recruitment freeze?

  • What happens when there is a recruitment freeze in the public sector is the posts are filled by agency staff at greater cost.

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 2:34pm

    Look, why is everyone so negative?

    Nick looked tired, to be fair. And why shouldn’t he be? The Lib Dems don’t have the enormous funding that the other two main parties have, nor does it have an army of indoctrinated worker robots to take the strain. Our party’s leaders have to do much, much more than the leaders of the other parties. For my part, I thank and applaud them, and Nick Clegg in particular. It has been a fantastic campaign and he deserves all our praise. This is not the time for post mortems, nor can we afford the luxury of depression or self-pity. In a few months time, we will look back at this campaign and, rightly, be proud of it.

    In the meantime, it is just one more week until the election. This weekend I shall ring up and volunteer to do some leafleting or something, for the first time since 1987.

    This IS going to be different. Before the election started, I heard idiot Torys chuntering about how they were going to squeeze the Lib Dem vote, but just quietly smiled to myself, as I thought the LD’s would get about 25%, hold their 62 seats and gain 10 – 20 more. Then I was enormously energised when the prospect of achieving a landmark breakthrough seemed possible. Now, it is becoming clearer that the truth is going to be somewhere between those two possibilities. That is still fantastic news.

    There is no reason to be depressed whatsoever.

  • Liberal Eye 30th Apr '10 - 2:46pm

    For me the biggest miss was that Clegg (and Cameron too come to that) let pass without strong rebuttal Brown’s opening assertion along the lines of “I’m the one that actually knows how to run the economy in good times and bad”. This matters because it’s the main issue in the election and also because it goes to the heart of how Brown has spun himself – not good at presentation, but solid and competent.

    What nonsense. It’s Brown as Chancellor, then as PM who:
    – Reorganised financial regulation in a way that when push came to shove proved dysfuntional with confused responsibilities.
    – Made clear to the regulators that ‘light touch’ (aka no touch) regulation was what was required. They had no idea what was going on until it blew up in their faces.
    – Caved into the banks every demand and kept on doing so long after it became clear we were in a huge bubble and long after Vince was sounding the alarm
    – Utterly failed to understand the dangers inherent in a huge credit binge or the growing connectedness of the financial system
    – When the imposion came prevaricated, more concerned that nationalising failing banks might seem Old Labour rather than doing the right thing.
    – Oversaw the biggest ever decline in our manufacturing base
    – Oversaw a huge increase in public sector costs and payroll while productivity went backwards
    – Endlessly fiddled with minutiae complicating tax etc immensely but having no sense of the big picture
    – Has no idea what it will take to turn the country round but proposes, in efect, to ‘try harder’ with the same plan
    – Has seen most new jobs go to immigrants over the level of which he has entirely lost control
    – Etc ad nauseam

    Brown is a man who talks like a compendium of government statistics but clearly has no sense of the soul of the Nation or what makes people tick. He seems to suffer from the delusion that if only he can personally pull on enough strings and tweak enough rules everything will suddenly come up roses.

    He himself in particular and Labour’s top down approach in general are the problem. We should nail him for that.

  • Foregone Conclusion 30th Apr '10 - 3:16pm

    Liberal Eye,

    The electorate knows all that, and it doesn’t really need reinforcing. That’s why Brown came third in all three debates, and that’s why Labour are third in the polls.

  • Don’t wish the worst on Gordon Brown otherwise you really will get a nice little Conservative majority.
    If I sound negative to Paul McKeown, it’s because like him I remember those two elections in the 1980s and how the Alliance party, as today’s LibDems were known, got nearly 8 million votes in one of them and came away with just 3.5% of the seats, just 23 in all. Granted things were better for the party in 2005, with 9.6% of the seats (62) reflecting a vote of around 5.4 million on a lower overall turnout.
    However,unlike Paul, I will not be looking back after an election with a smile at a 10 – 20+ seat gain, reminiscing about a campaign that failed to break through and leaving a Cameron government to implement it’s change of reducing 10% of the “right” seats in order to ensure perpetual power. Electoral reform is a given, as Nick Clegg said , and must spell the end of FPTP which has literally been robbing 70% the British people of their right to be heard. Now why don’t they include that in the remaining election broadcast or in interviews before Thursday? Can anyone else help to get such a message through to HQ?

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 4:29pm

    @Sean Blake
    >>>leaving a Cameron government to implement it’s change of reducing 10% of the “right” seats in order to ensure perpetual power. Electoral reform is a given, as Nick Clegg said , and must spell the end of FPTP which has literally been robbing 70% the British people of their right to be heard. Now why don’t they include that in the remaining election broadcast or in interviews before Thursday? Can anyone else help to get such a message through to HQ?

    Tories don’t play fair; nothing new there. The thought you leave above should scare even a few corpses sufficiently to get up from their mortuary slabs to the polling booth!

    Yes, it is a powerful message and should certainly be one that goes out during this last week.

    However, the positive news about fairness in taxation and education needs to be hammered home, too. It was noticeable that neither DC, nor GB, wished last night to argue with Nick Clegg about those Lib Dem policies: a clear indication that they recognise them as strong potential vote winners for us. If there was any chance of them being able to knock those policies down, or confuse the viewers about, they certainly would have tried.

    But yes, you are right. Nick should make clear what the Tory plan for “reform” really means.

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 4:32pm

    If John Bercow should be unseated, could I suggest that a senior Lib Dem should be put up for the job? It would give the Lib Dems a better grip over the reform agenda, surely?

  • Matthew Huntbach 30th Apr '10 - 4:47pm

    Andrew Suffield

    You know, I’m surprised nobody’s called them on this one. I don’t know if it’s universal, but all the civil service and local government jobs around here are already advertised as “internal applicants only”.

    Indeed, which is horrendous for anyone who is without a job. My wife is a skilled university adminstrator with excellent references, unemployed for nearly two years now because almost every senior administrative post going in higher education is being given to someone internally.

  • Matthew Huntbach 30th Apr '10 - 4:50pm

    MBoy

    Gosh, you sound like you’re on a bit of a downer today Matthew! I thought the closing speech was good, though not as good as last week’s. But an important thing to remember is that we shouldnt assume everyone who was watching had seen the previous ones and so needed something different

    It was the first one I saw. I’m saying it could have been a lot better, and it would not have been difficult to have made it a lot better.

  • Thanks, Paul, it’s good to know you can see the dangers. Maybe we can start a bandwagon – after all there’s nothing fairer than one man one vote – but it’s got to get rolling fast. I’ll circulate the email address of Director of Communications , Jonny Oates, if there are enough of you who think they should be including that line and want to contact the person closest to Nick on the campaign trail direct.
    After all, we are going to hear enough scare stories about a hung parliament from now until May 6. For instance, James Naughtie has just been criticised by the Mail’s political editor for left-wing bias in calling it a balanced parliament. Is there no balanced reporting that the smiling David Cameron wants us to see or hear? PR to him will always mean Public Relations.

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 5:09pm

    @Sean Blake

    Sean, like yourself, I do hope that the Tories do not achieve an overall majority. I would certainly prefer LD 90 odd seats in a balanced parliament to 120 in one with a Con majority.

    Given that 4 or 5 Sinn Fein members will not take the oath, the Tories will need 324 for a parliamentary majority of one. Perhaps Bercow will be unseated by Farage, who will never vote for Tory electoral so-called reform, so they will need to supply a speaker and they may need another to cancel out Farage. Northern Ireland has already had its number of MPs reduced, can’t see turkeys there voting for Christmas, especially given that Sylvia Hermon should retain her seat and Reg Empey will probably not take his target, so the Ulster Unionists/Conservatives will have no MP’s. Similarly, neither SNP nor Plaid will stand for it either. So they Tories will definitely need a minimum of 326 MPs to be able to ram that nonsense through, unless they can persuade Labour to support them…

    Which brings up another idea… Sylvia Hermon left the Ulster Unionists, or rather the Ulster Unionists left her, as she put it, when the Unionists joined up with the Conservatives. Hermon is Labour at heart, but Labour supports the nationalist SDLP. She is standing as an independent; would there be any mileage in someone asking her if she would like to be the first APNI MP, or, perhaps, to join the LD’s? Longshot, I know, but she would be a great asset…

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 5:19pm

    @Sean Blake,

    The message about Tory gerrymandering is a very frightening one, for it is true.

    Just one thing, though. The message should not in any way be confused with what the LD’s would do in a hung parliament: we are neither Conservative, nor Labour, we are Liberal Democrats. We will use our influence in Parliement to push for an agenda of Liberal Democrat reforms, to the electoral system, to taxation, to education. The more seats we have in Parliament, the greater our influence will be. Full stop.

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 5:20pm

    What is Jonny Oates email, then? Mine is ppjmckeown /at/ tiscali.co.uk …

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 5:58pm

    @Niklas Smith
    >>>Well, Sylvia Hermon is not as bigoted as some other Northern Irish politicians
    I don’t see really see her as bigoted at all, although clearly unionist. The LD’s are generally vaguely unionist, I imagine (without bothering to read the manifesto), but would ultimately leave any question of national sovereignty to a plebiscite. The APNI is “neutral”, but I imagine SH would be welcomed, provided she accepted that their platform was not one of unionist versus nationalist, but all working together.

    >>>she has voted for ID cards and 90 day detention
    Nobody’s perfect! Bear in mind that she stood under the UU whip. Her personal opinions might be different, or she might be convinced.

    >>>Apparently the Alliance Party stood aside in her favour in 2001 but David Alderdice stood for the Alliance in her seat in 2005 and they are fielding a candidate this time too, so I’m not sure whether they would welcome a defection.
    The APNI has never won a parliamentary seat, nor will they this time. I can’t imagine they would be unhappy if SH were to come aboard after the election, either via the APNI, or via the LD’s.

    If it were possible, she would be an enormous asset, real front-bench material. It would be a major coup, with LD MP’s in all four nations of the UK, more representative in that sense than any of the other parties. And it would certainly give two fingers to David Cameron and William Hague, something that both she, and we, would welcome. It would also be of great benefit to Northern Ireland, helping to cement its politics in the British mainstream.

    Of course, I do understand that it is Football Fantasy League stuff. In all probability, SH will probably wish to remain independent.

  • You sure know your Liberals from your liberals, both of you!
    Seriously, though, let’s just get enough seats to deny any other party a majority before considering education, taxation policies etc. I know the Liberal Democrats have their own agenda but let’s not be shy of telling especially undecided or wavering voters that the present electoral system is stitching them up.
    There just need to be some fresh, creative thinking and a clear, concise message about the value of a vote.

  • Paul McKeown 30th Apr '10 - 8:26pm

    @Sean Blake
    >>>You sure know your Liberals from your liberals, both of you!
    Seriously, though, let’s just get enough seats to deny any other party a majority before considering education, taxation policies etc. I know the Liberal Democrats have their own agenda but let’s not be shy of telling especially undecided or wavering voters that the present electoral system is stitching them up.
    There just need to be some fresh, creative thinking and a clear, concise message about the value of a vote.

    I agree with all of that, Sean. It’s just that I wouldn’t want to see any hostage lost to fortune. We are not “wishy washy, feely weely, luvvy duvvy wiberals”, however often we are accused of that by those who can only see British politics in red/blue blinkers. We are not closet Labours, nor are we closet Tories. We are Liberal Democrats, standing four square in a respected, long-standing British political tradition, with a great historical past and a great future. We will not sell that for any mess of potage. That message should never lost, nor should we allow others to confuse our message for our own ends. So therefore any talk of electoral reform must state clearly why it is needed and who it would enfranchise; it should not get side-tracked by any talk of what happens if.

  • The word fair is becoming boring to us all
    The immigration policy is losing us votes
    The four main policies are not touted strongly enough
    Vince is not on TV enough to be honest abouit how the economy will be reconstructed
    The subject of a hung parliament has been dodged far too often and people are getting far too worried.

  • I thought I’d keep away from this site until after the election but an email alert made me take a look.
    Harry, you are so right, in particular about how the campaign is treating the subject of a hung parliament. I absolutely despair about how far removed from reality the people who are running Nick’s campaign really are and my view has been reinforced by posters here who just don’t get it : none of their aims will EVER be achieved if David Cameron gets an overall majority.

  • Sean Blake said: “none of their aims will EVER be achieved if David Cameron gets an overall majority.”

    Quite right. Which is why I can’t really understand why the main campaign is targeting Labour voters. The Labour vote might be soft but the main outcome of the Labour vote being decimated would be a Tory majority. Surely, it’s the Tory vote that has to be targeted.

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 AvatarJoe Bourke 20th Jun - 3:08pm
    Peter Martin. Secular stagnation refers to an economy with a long-term lack of demand. Historically, a booming economy with low unemployment and high GDP growth...
  • User AvatarMatt (Bristol) 20th Jun - 2:22pm
    Jamie D: "At the same time, I suspect that some conservatives (emphasis on the small “c”) may realise the recent democratic failure is a reason...
  • User Avatarchris moore 20th Jun - 2:21pm
    Boom and bust abolished. 3.23% growth rate forever. We are the Immortals.
  • User AvatarChris Cory 20th Jun - 1:53pm
    Didn't I read that Tim Farron tried to recruit Rory ? If so, then he at least didn't see R.S. as just another died in...
  • User AvatarJamie Dalzell 20th Jun - 1:31pm
    Regarding comments above, I agree that Rory Stewart's policies are in may ways status quo. That should not be surprising, he is a Conservative. Such...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 20th Jun - 1:27pm
    @ JoeB, "The claim that fiscal stimulus can deliver real annual growth of 3% regardless of what supply shocks hit the economy or what capacity...