ICM poll: No revival for two-party politics, even as Lib Dems drop to 10%

State of the parties, 17 June 2014.The Guardian has published its latest ICM poll, the ‘gold standard’ survey most eagerly awaited alike by political junkies (because ICM has the best track record) and Lib Dems (because it tends to give the party higher ratings). It shows Labour on 32%, a nose ahead of the Tories (31%), with Ukip (16%) and the Lib Dems (10%) trailing in third and fourth.

Two points stand out. First, the combined Labour/Conservative shares, at 63%, are the lowest ever recorded by ICM using the phone method. No sign of a reversion to two-party politics.

Secondly, the Lib Dem share of 10% is also the lowest ever recorded by ICM using the phone method. As Anthony Wells notes, “ICM were responsible for the Lib Dems lowest ever score of 3% back in 1989, but this is the lowest ICM have ever shown for them since they switched to phone polling in the 1990s”.

All the party shares are within the margin of error from the May ICM poll, so we should be cautious about reading over-much into the shifts. That said, the Lib Dem dip is in line with other post-election polls showing support for the party down a notch – probably as a result of the bad publicity surrounding the poor Euro results and the subsequent leadership speculation. Whether this is polling ‘noise’ often associated with election-time, or the start of a trend where the Lib Dems struggle to reach double digits, we’ll see in future months.

On ICM’s leadership ratings, Nick Clegg may not know whether to laugh or cry. All party leaders see a fall, but it is Ed Miliband who’s suffered the worst damage: his net rating of -39% is lower than Clegg’s (-37%) once again.

All polls are of course snapshots, not predictions. Lib Dem ratings a year from polling day have not necessarily been good guides to actual results. With that in mind, YouGov’s Peter Kellner has produced an interesting analysis looking at the possible range of results for the Lib Dems, depending on whether the party suffers a real drubbing (polling 8%) or whether it recovers by May 2015 (to, say, 14%) and factoring in an incumbency boost.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, such a big difference would produce radically different outcomes for the party: it could be as bad as holding just 19 seats, or as (relatively) good as retaining 44 MPs. In either scenario, the Lib Dems fare slightly better if Labour is ahead of the Tories in the popular vote, as the Tories are the main challengers in two-thirds of the party’s held seats.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Polls.
Advert

47 Comments

  • David Evans 18th Jun '14 - 9:38am

    Would it be closer to the truth to say “No revival for two-party politics, even as Lib Dems drop to 10%, because UKIP are taking our place?

  • Paul in Wokingham 18th Jun '14 - 9:43am

    Ashcroft is releasing his poll on LD-Con marginals tomorrow morning at 11am.

  • Let us rejoice as the ‘Dear Leader’ continues to ensure our glorious march forwards.

  • Stephen, are you in training for running round Whitehall and Westminster without clothes in 11 months time?
    It is beginning to look almost certain. Even Lord Ashdown must but be having the gravest of doubts and asking whether he gave the wrong advice to Clegg three weeks ago. These appalling polling figures must tell the Parliamentary party that the only way to stop the rot and get back some form of credibility and advancement over the next year is to start by changing the leader.

  • Perhaps unsurprisingly, such a big difference would produce radically different outcomes for the party: it could be as bad as holding just 19 seats, or as (relatively) good as retaining 44 MPs.

    But without the incumbency factor, Kellner’s predictions based on the current polling figures are 11, 11 and 17 seats (depending on the Tory/Labour lead). It’s worth remembering that uniform swing would have got the Lib Dem result in 2010 almost exactly right.

    Kellner’s analysis also depends on a quite arbitrary assumption that UKIP will poll 10%. The level of the UKIP vote will obviously be rather crucial in Con/LD marginals.

  • Simon, you have to be joking.

  • “I think it’s really the case that the only way to stop the rot and get back some form of credibility and advancement over the next year is to start being rather more united and support the Leader.”

    But isn’t it blindingly obvious that Clegg has lost the confidence of a substantial portion of the membership, and that there can be no unity while he remains leader?

  • “No revival for two-party politics, even as Lib Dems drop to 10%, ”

    In the real world of councils ,such as Manchester, most of London and huge stretches of the UK we now have just Labour councillors . Liberal Democrats have been wiped out.

    ONE PARTY POLITICS is the actual result of seven years of Clegg.

    In the real world, two party politics would be an improvement!!!

  • Jonathan Pile 18th Jun '14 - 10:51am

    Seriously is anyone advocating papering over the cracks in the vain hope of reaching 14% have a plan to win back women and 18-24’s ? We need to be brave and get this leadership issue out of the way or it will rumble on to Election Day and wipe out the party. Clegg cannot lead us to anything but defeat – the question is whether it is total wipeout or the survival of the fittest. A new leader and a new manifesto which aimed to promote popular politics and lib dem principles could give us edge on labour and the greens and get us up to 14-18% otherwise with Clegg were in single figures or worse. Join our opposition to clegg.
    http://www.libdemfightback.yolasite.com

  • @Simon Shaw

    Plus one or get a gun shoot yourselves in the foot

  • “Every meat eater should kill, cook and eat at least one beast.”— is being re-tweetd by Stephen Tall.

    This seems a bit drastic and inhumane. A simple leadership electon called by 75 local parties will do.

  • Lord Aschcroft’s poll will get drowned out by the England Uruguay game, so if it is really bad, it won’t get much immediate media attention.

    There’s two questions for the Lib Dems. To what extent do they defend their record in government (IMO they’ll have to by and large do this). Spending an election campaign apologising for what they’ve done would surely be a disaster. Secondly who is the best person to lead them in this? Is it still Nick Clegg?In many ways it’s a similar conundrum to the one Labour faced in 2009-10.

  • John Barrett 18th Jun '14 - 11:45am

    Without the right policies based on strong principles and a leadership which is trusted by the party and the public, there is every indication that next year we will follow the fate of our sister party in Germany. Its description in Wikipedia gives some clues as to why what happened, happened to them. “The FDP, which strongly supports human rights, civil liberties, and internationalism, has shifted from the centre to the centre-right over time. Since the 1980s, the party has firmly pushed economic liberalism, and has aligned itself closely to the promotion of free markets and privatisation. It is a member of the Liberal International and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party.” There is now a real danger that we will also be squeezed out of any future meaningful debates or discussions, as the polls, (and voters) and sections of the media appear to think that what we say just does not matter any more. It will take much more than a new highly paid Director of Strategy to change this. Sadly, many members (and now former members), activists, donors, councillors and others feel left out in the cold by our party, a party we have actively supported for decades. Any manifesto for the future looks like it will be based on one issue and that is how to get back into Government at any cost. Next year, we could even make the FDP results look like they were not too bad.

  • Also has anyone seen the figures for where the 2010 LD vote is going? It’s all over the place! I have to say one of the most depressing findings is that there are as usual more LD>Tory switchers than there are Tory>LD switchers. This is in spite of the Lib Dems moving to the right since the election and the Tories abandoning their lovebombing of the LDs.

    I don’t like the man but maybe Clegg is unfortunate. Is the problem for him that he has made the Tories look better than they are?

  • Frank Booth
    If we accept that the electoral problem we have is not just NC, but our political direction (ie looks like Tory-lite), then at some point we have to change direction. At that point, there has really to be apologies, and a pretty radical change of top personnel. I assume you think that should happen over a longer period? I personally think it will look even more cynical if we either go through the election either with the sort of policies we have had in coalition, THEN change them, or try to make a subtle soft-pedalled change. It will seem we have maintained our commitment to “old” politics and Cleggist “centrism”.

  • As the article points out there is nothing odd about Elections producing a temporary shift in the Polls, I am unaware of one ever producing a permanent shift. The reasonable expectation is that next Month the Polls will revert to showing us on an average of 10% with a small & slowly falling Labour Lead.
    To make a reasonable attempt to predict the LibDem share next May we nned to compare our Polling with the last time we were in Government. Obviously we cant do that so we are left with looking at the other Parties. The Long-Term decline in The 2 Party vote seems to be continuing, leaving only 2 possible outcomes. Either there will be an unprecedented rise in the votes for “Others”, principally UKIP & The Greens or a lot of Voters will return to us.

  • Bill le Breton 18th Jun '14 - 12:32pm

    Interesting. A week or so ago I had a quick look at our seats and calculated that we have 11 bankers. I thought there were 13 or 14 where concentrating all mobile resources would be wise. I published this on the members formula. If the dragons dens and the wheel house are more optimistic in their assessment, I think they may endanger the 13 to 14 where we can influence the result.

  • Preamble Liberal 18th Jun '14 - 12:45pm

    @Simon Shaw

    I’d say we have been very loyal, not to mention patient, for the past four years. Loyalty, is not a one way street!

  • Lord Aschcroft’s poll will get drowned out by the England Uruguay game, so if it is really bad, it won’t get much immediate media attention.

    Hopefully it will get the immediate attention of the parliamentary party!

  • Stephen Hesketh 18th Jun '14 - 1:19pm

    @ Simon Shaw
    Isn’t a 3% drop exactly the sort of result you’d expect in the light of the disunity displayed since 22 May (and I don’t just mean by Lord Oakshott)?

    I think it’s really the case that the only way to stop the rot and get back some form of credibility and advancement over the next year is to start being rather more united and support the Leader.

    Simon, in practice how many voters realise just how much disquiet there is in the party? And what was the cause of our miserable showing before the last round of elections when many of us came out and said “Right, enough is enough”?

    I will be working for the local party from July through to the GE and, if they also have a good candidate nearby, I am sure other members and supporter will do likewise. Thankfully we don’t have a presidential system.

    My issue is that loyalty is (should be) a two way process. And I’m not sure it is right now.

  • Matthew Huntbach 18th Jun '14 - 1:24pm

    Frank Booth

    To what extent do they defend their record in government (IMO they’ll have to by and large do this). Spending an election campaign apologising for what they’ve done would surely be a disaster.

    Defending “their record in government” does not mean “defending everything the government has done”, though unfortunately Clegg has often treated it as meaning that. This is a largely Conservative government pursuing largely Conservative policies. If there is no difference between what it has done and what a largely Liberal Democrat government would have done – which much of what Clegg comes out with suggests – then there really is no point in voting Liberal Democrat, because anyone who thinks that’s the best would vote Conservative.

    The point needs to be made that the Liberal Democrats were not in the position to be able to get all the 300+ Conservative MPs to drop Conservative policy and replace it by Liberal Democrat policy. They were really only in the position to influence it at the edges, and to swing the balance to something which was more to the Liberal Democrats way of thinking in those cases where the Conservative Party was itself fairly evenly split.

    The Liberal Democrats accepted that the way the people voted in 2010 and the distortions of the electoral system put in place a Conservative government. A year later the people voted, by two-to-one, to keep the electoral system after those in favour of its retention – Labour and Conservative people – argued passionately that it was best to have distortion which increases the power of the biggest party (the Conservatives in 2010) and reduces that of third parties (the Liberal Democrats in 2010). We don’t agree with how people voted, but as democrats we accept it – there was no other government that could have arisen from the Parliament the people and the electoral system they supported put in place, the distortions supported by the people two-to-one ruled out a Labour-LibDem coalition, and in this way also meant the LibDems could not act as some powerful “kingmaker”. Instead, the Liberal Democrats acted responsibly by letting the only stable government that could have emerged get on with it, rather than leaving the country in chaos without a stable government by refusing to participate in it.

    So, I don’t think there is any need for an apology. But neither is there any need to defend all this government has done. Rather the need is to make clear that a government in which the Liberal Democrats played the lead part would have been VERY different in emphasis, and the way it did things, and that the only way to get such a government is many more Liberal Democrat MPs, and the only way to get many more Liberal Democrat MPs is many more Liberal Democrat votes.

    Secondly who is the best person to lead them in this? Is it still Nick Clegg?

    No, quite obviously not. Almost everything he has said and done since leading the party into the coalition seems to have been intended to prevent it from using the lines I’ve suggested above. There’s only two sensible explanations for this – either he’s a Tory plant, or he’s just massively incompetent. As I don’t generally go along with conspiracy theories, I opt for the second.

  • Paul in Wokingham 18th Jun '14 - 1:24pm

    @Frank Booth – the point about Ashcroft’s poll is not whether it is noticed by the public. It is that it allows us to put a reasonable number (based on the contingencies of circumstance) on the “incumbency effect” and gauge the likely size of the post GE LD parliamentary party with greater confidence.

  • Frank Booth 18th Jun '14 - 1:35pm

    Matthew Huntbach – I agree with almost everything you say although I disagree over the AV referendum. It’s a majoritarian system and not a step towards PR. The decision to hold a referendum on it was a massive mistake. It should have been PR or nothing. Expending so much capital on a referendum on a voting system almost no-one in their heart of hearts believes in was as big an error as tuition fees.

  • Simon Shaw:
    Clegg is the Undertaker to the Liberal Democrats.

    1800 councillors lost, 10 MEPS lost, loads of lost deposits at by elections, votes down in record numbers, even at Eastleigh, terrible polling figures, inability to find candidates for many local government elections, the loss and/or break up of constituency parties, the prospect of only one MP from Scotland, Charles Kennedy and up to 45 – 50 MPs lost in total. The coffins are being made by the voters. Yet you want our Undertaker to stay in position. Incredible.

  • How odd that intraparty discussion of a leadership change is supposed to be devastating to Liberal Democrat chances, allowing the Lib Dems to be depicted as weak, wavering, inconsistent, and without the strength of their convictions — but a major policy shift on an in/out EU referendum which wipes out years of public statements (including a well-publicised debate just two months ago) is supposed to go over just fine.

  • colin (ex-lib dem) 18th Jun '14 - 4:03pm

    @Stephen Tall (in his article)
    “Two points stand out. First, the combined Labour/Conservative shares, at 63%, are the lowest ever recorded by ICM using the phone method.”

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/icm-poll-ukip-34506.html

    The May 2013 ICM phone poll taken after the 2013 local elections had Lab+Con = 62%

    @ paul barker
    “As the article points out there is nothing odd about Elections producing a temporary shift in the Polls, I am unaware of one ever producing a permanent shift.”

    The May 2013 ICM poll saw UKIP go from 9% to 18% generated by UKIPs local election performance. This June 2014 ICM poll has UKIP on 16%. Permanent shift? I think so.

  • A Social Liberal 18th Jun '14 - 4:10pm

    @ Simon Shaw

    Referring to the BBC POll of Polls will not further your arguements, the website has not been updated since 7th May and so is not only out of date it doesn’t even take into account the poll of polls, the last elections we had.

  • Matthew Huntbach 18th Jun '14 - 4:15pm

    Frank Booth

    Matthew Huntbach – I agree with almost everything you say although I disagree over the AV referendum. It’s a majoritarian system and not a step towards PR.

    Yes, I know that. But did you read any commentary after the result which took the line “AV was not enough of a reform, we should treat the victory for ‘No’ as a call for more thorough reform on the lines of a proper proportional system”? No, the result was universally written up as closing down any electoral reform for the foreseeable future. Not surprising because the arguments the ‘No’ campaign used were essentially the arguments against proportional representation, so the assumption was that people had voted against even the mildest reform because they wanted none at all.

    To me the line “Well, you the people voted to keep the electoral system on the grounds that distortion in favour of the biggest party and against third parties is a good thing, so isn’t it a bit silly to complain about the results of that?” is a good defensive one for us. Also, I’m well aware that many saw ‘No’ as a vote against Clegg, so I think it’s a good idea to point out that the inconsistency between getting angry with Clegg for “propping up the Tories” and backing an electoral system which does just that and is defended on the grounds that distortion of representation which gives extra seats beyond their share of the vote to the biggest party is a good thing. To me, the current government over-dominated by the Tories due to the distortion of the electoral system should be held up as illustrating the argument FOR electoral reform, not against.

    To me, shutting up about electoral reform after the AV referendum was a bad mistake. We lost, yes, but that’s because people did not understand what it was actually about, so we should lose no opportunity to point out “See how you were fooled, next time think more deeply about it”. That includes Tories who might now see how AV could have rescued them from their vote being split by UKIP.

  • Matthew Huntbach 18th Jun '14 - 4:25pm

    David-1

    but a major policy shift on an in/out EU referendum which wipes out years of public statements (including a well-publicised debate just two months ago) is supposed to go over just fine.

    This also fits in with the AV referendum. People are being fooled into expressing an anti-EU opinion without having much of a clue about what the EU really does and what it is really about, and they are being fooled by those who have an ulterior motive in fooling them – which is building an ultra-right-wing economical society that would be the very opposite of the nostalgic vision UKIP pretends it is about (or lets others paint it as being about). When people say they are anti-EU, a lot of it is concern about issues of immigration and a lot of it is because it is seen as some sort of general protest about the political system.

    Getting people whipped up into agreeing to something that is not in their interest, and then forever holding it up to them “You had the choice, and you agreed to it” is something people are afraid of, it’s been a common technique of all those salesmen for poor financial products. So I think they could be got to see that the shadowy forces behind the anti-EU hysteria are that sort of thing, and that now when that whipping up has reached its peak is not a good time to make an informed decision. However, here, as with the AV referendum, Clegg and the Cleggies have showed a remarkable ability to use all the losing lines and to lose the argument by sheer incompetence and arrogance. Clegg v. Farage amounted to Clegg boosting Farage by supporting the false image Farage, aided by the press, has been creating for himself rather than demolishing it.

  • We should be “on the moral high ground” here – now that the electorate SEEM to be moving to a position where they want to identify more with their politicians. They seem also to want to be able to trust them more, and are loudly proclaiming that they can’t currently trust them. I am therefore, surprised that no-one seems to want to agree with me in demanding a total change, and an apology for what has gone before. Is it SO revolutionary to apologise (genuinely) in politics??

  • Yes. The position of any major political party has always been “We’re right now, we were right in the past, we’ve always been right, and even if our position seems to your plebeian mind to be diametrically opposed to what we stood for two months ago, that’s just because you’re not appreciating the subtleties.”

  • Thanks David-1 It’s certainly been like that for a lot of years. Maybe I am looking through rose coloured specs thinking that it was somewhat different through the 50s 60s and part of the 70s?

  • Stephen Hesketh 18th Jun '14 - 9:16pm

    @Simon Shaw 18th Jun ’14 – 2:21pm

    Hi Simon, I’m not surprised you didn’t understand the question, it doesn’t make sense. I’m blaming a rushed lunchtime dip into LDV!

    I was attempting to write something along the lines of, “And what was the cause of our miserable showing (in the polls) before the last round of elections (i.e. prior to any concerted calls for NC to go). It was only after these elections that many of us came out and said “Right, enough is enough.”
    My interpretation, supported by the on going haemorrhaging of our elected representatives is that the main causes of our unpopularity were present before the election. I do agree that we are likely to lose further support but my fear, as I have written elsewhere, is that we are moving into the old Lib Dem ‘wasted vote’ territory.
    Far from being disloyal, many of us have spent four years supporting NC and giving his strategy the benefit of the doubt; but surely there comes a point when the Captain and his course must be questioned?

    It would be bad enough had he simply been delivering up more of the same and the party reaping the ‘rewards’ of such a strategy, but for me the line was crossed when he and his centre-right nominee David Laws began predetermining the manifesto, our (post election) negotiating team and our red line issues as if all was going well.

    I feel they are, without agreement or even discussion, moving the party from under the feet of its members, supporters and hard-won voters and repositioning it on the centre-right. Loyalty is a two way street and through his own actions (just as much as his failures) he has caused me to withdraw mine.

  • Michael Berwick-Gooding 18th Jun '14 - 11:48pm

    @ theakes – “the prospect of only one MP from Scotland, Charles Kennedy”
    What about our safest Scottish seat – that of Alistair Carmichael – Orkney and Shetland?

  • Peter Chegwyn 19th Jun '14 - 12:02am

    Michael – Montgomery was once regarded as one of our safest seats, Liberal for almost a century. Not now.

    As far too many of our councillors have discovered under Nick’s Leadership, even the safest of safe seats can be lost.

    And even if you are right and Orkney & Shetland is held in 2015, is the prospect of only two MPs from Scotland much better than the prospect of only one?

    The Scottish Parliament elections gave a foresight of what might happen to our Scottish representation at Westminster in 2015. Being in coalition with the Tories was never going to help us in Scotland.

  • Michael Berwick-Gooding 19th Jun '14 - 1:22am

    @ Peter Chegwyn

    Orkney and Shetland has returned a Liberal or Liberal Democrat MP since 1950. For most of this time our majority has been over 20%. Our vote increased the longer the MP has held the seat. Alistair’s majority was 37.4% in 2005 and increased to 58.5% in 2010.

    Montgomeryshire was Liberal or Liberal Democrat 1880-1979 and 1983-2010 (sometimes before 1945 there was only one candidate). Our votes when we won were often in the region of 40% and our majority sometimes fell to less than 10%. Alex Carlile increased his share of the vote and majority percentage in 1992 as did Lembit Opik but not to the levels achieved in Orkney and Shetland.

    I wasn’t giving a view if 2 is better than one, but I think it is marginally better, I was just pointing out that Alistair Carmichael’s seat was safer than Charles Kennedy’s. Also it was the only area we elected constituency members of the Scottish Parliament. I would expect us to return at least 5 MPs from Scotland in 2015.

  • Peter Watson 19th Jun '14 - 7:52am

    I see that a MORI poll puts Greens level with Lib Dems on 8% (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8873). How long before a poll puts Lib Dems in 5th place? Heck, how long before a UK poll puts Lib Dems behind SNP?

  • Michael Berwick-Gooding

    I would expect us to return at least 5 MPs from Scotland in 2015.

    Which would be a disaster considering you currently have 11. If such a result was replicated across the country, you’d be down to around 30 MPs in total. Peter Chegwyn make s a fair point, in much of Scotland people vote Lib Dem, not because they are liberals, but because they are the only effective opposition to the Tories (it’s also why people vote SNP in Perthshire). Now I don’t think people will tactically vote Lib Dem, which ironically, is certain to increase Tory representation.

  • Peter Chegwyn 19th Jun '14 - 9:15am

    Michael – Just because a seat has been ‘safe’ in the past is no guarantee that it will be safe now. And don’t assume that Alistair Carmichael is as popular in Orkney & Shetland as Charles Kennedy is in Ross, Skye & Lochaber.

    Yes, we should win both seats but nothing is certain in the present political climate, especially in Scotland.

    I think your expectation of us returning at least 5 MPs from Scotland in 2015 could sadly be over-optimistic. We won’t even enjoy the incumbency factor in seats like Gordon and NE Fife while our coalition with the Tories was never going to play well north of the border.

  • g
    I think, without openly saying so, current leadership thinking would welcome a result that kept half of our present complement of seats. They are so desperate to hold on, to office, to their economic ideas, and their control of the party that they seem prepared to relegate us to a small fragmented, local, and “wasted vote” rump. Only by a Grimond style radicalisation do we have a chance to revive. Grimond drew on earlier Liberal economic models of co-ownership, which had they been implemented may have avoided thatcherisation of the economy. In his time, the Tories had generally accepted the post-war social and mixed economy consensus, but even then, voters recognised the Grimond-led Liberals as a new, and different model. It was not the Tories – lite, neither was it what later became Bennite socialism, or Trade Union-machine politics.

    Although the Liberals were the first in this country to take the environment seriously as a political issue, it had not been recognised as an economic issue. The challenge for us as a party, to prevent more leakage to the Greens, is how we regain anything of a green mantle to our economics. Stupidly, Cleggism has gone along with the prevailing worship of economic growth, as currently defined, to get us out of “the financial crisis”. Part of the Lib Dem “difference” has been to recognise that we need to rebalance not just the economy, but many other aspects of society. By NOT arguing this case, Clegg nationally has diverted us from a historic path. That is one strong reason why even our previous core vote is disappearing.

    I welcomed Clegg’s “Party of IN” rhetoric, which contrasted with Chris Rennard’s earlier decisions to not talk about Europe during Euro elections unless absolutely necessary. There has for years been a timidity about sowing the seeds early, making rhetorical arguments, which later can be fleshed out and used in policymaking and making winning cases. Clegg’s timidity has mainly been in economics. Because economics underpins how society works, unless you challenge assumptions, society will never undergo some of the changes that are necessary. Future generations will probably pay very heavily for our caution.

  • Michael Berwick-Gooding 20th Jun '14 - 1:05am

    @ Peter Chegwyn “And don’t assume that Alistair Carmichael is as popular in Orkney & Shetland as Charles Kennedy is in Ross, Skye & Lochaber.”

    But I do. Charles had 52.6% of the vote in 2010 down from 58.7% in 2005 and a majority of 37.5% down from 43.8%. Alistair had 62% in 2010 up from 51.5% in 2005 and a majority of 51.3% up from 37.4%.

    Plus my earlier point about it was only in Orkney and Shetland that we could get constituency members of the Scottish Parliament elected.

    While I am not sure I would like to see Danny Alexander re-elected I think he will be as well as John Thurso and hopefully Michael Moore (who I think is the least certain of my five). I hope I am not being over-optimistic.

  • Peter Chegwyn 20th Jun '14 - 1:24am

    @ Michael Berwick-Gooding – Sadly I think you are being widly over-optimistic!

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 AvatarPeter 19th Sep - 6:36pm
    The climate emergency enthusiasts here will be aware that climate models are used to predict the future warming of the planet depending on assumptions concerning...
  • User AvatarLaurence Cox 19th Sep - 6:23pm
    @Charles Pragnell That 46 MPs on 17% of the vote is misleading because it was largely a result of an unofficial arrangement between the Lib...
  • User AvatarNonconformistradical 19th Sep - 6:00pm
    @Ross McLean Jo was making the point in her conference speech that she had actually - unlike bojo - actually visited the border area and...
  • User AvatarRoss McLean 19th Sep - 5:56pm
    Charles Pragnall - In the 1987 election I recall our then leaders (the 2 Davids) actually went to Northern Ireland to campaign with the Alliance...
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 19th Sep - 5:54pm
    Mark Seaman, "Remainer MPs have blocked the only deal that the EU offered" No - Brexiter MPs did that. "they (Parliament) (do not) have a...
  • User AvatarFiona 19th Sep - 5:51pm
    These results may well be a conference bounce, but as we had far greater, if not always accurate, coverage than normal, we are entitled to...
Thu 10th Oct 2019