Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of the early race for the party presidency, the London mayoral selection, Trident, and the Labour leadership. Over 400 party members have responded, and we’ve been publishing the full results.
This Saturday we find out who will be the next Labour leader. The assumption is it will be neck-and-neck between the Brothers Miliband, David and Ed. David has been the favourite throughout the summer-long contest, but in the last few weeks theres been a sense that the race has tightened with many folk now tipping Ed to sneak victory.
We asked our sample of Lib Dem party members two questions about the Labour leadership; two questions which we last asked at the end of May. It’s interesting to see how views have changed in the past few months.
First, we asked: Putting aside your Lib Dem allegiance who do you think would make the best Labour leader from the Labour party’s own point of view? (Figures from May in brackets.)
- 38% (17%) – David Miliband
- 31% (37%) – Ed Miliband
- 14% (9%) – Andy Burnham
- 10% (25%) – Diane Abbott
- 5% (3%) – Ed Balls
(Excluding Don’t know / No opinion = 13% (24%).)
As you can see, there’s been a heck of a turnaround among Lib Dem members in perceptions of the Labour leadership hopefuls. Back in May, party members saw Ed Miliband as the best potential leader for Labour, with Diane Abbott in a strong second place, and David Miliband languishing in a distant third place, on just 17%.
Spool forward four months, and it’s David Miliband who is now reckoned by Lib Dem members to be the best choice for the Labour party: indeed, he’s doubled his ratings. To be fair to Ed, though suport for him is lower, he’s still a strong second. But it’s Diane Abbott whose support among Lib Dems appears to have collapsed, down from 25% to just 10%. Though she has taken a strong and principled line on civil liberties, her campaign has been lacklustre, with little of originality to say about Labour’s future. Indeed, it’s Ed Balls who has made the running as the left-leaning candidate with most to say on the biggest issue of them all, the economy.
Next we asked: And which of the following declared Labour leadership contenders do you think would be to the best political advantage of the Lib Dems? (Figures from May in brackets.)
- 38% (47%) – Ed Balls
- 37% (22%) – Diane Abbott
- 10% (5%) – Ed Miliband
- 8% (6%) – David Miliband
- 7% (6%) – Andy Burnham
(Excluding Don’t know / No opinion = 12% (24%).)
Put bluntly, this question asks, ‘Who do you think would make the worst Labour leader?’ Back in May, Ed Balls was the runaway winner with 47% of the vote. However, his lively campaign appears to have — if not won Lib Dems over — at least shown that the combative Mr Balls could pose a threat to the party if he were elected. That said, he still tops our poll, which tells its own story about his perceived credibility. Quite simply he’s seen as a tribalist bully, an unattractive combination which party members feel will play badly with the wider public.
Again, it’s Diane Abbott who appears to have lost out most during the campaign, with many more Lib Dems now perceiving her as the weakest potential Labour leader, up from 22% to 37%. As in May, neither of the Milibands, nor Andy Burnham, are seen to be much to the political advantage of the Lib Dems: to damn them with faint praise, they are seen as safe pairs of hands.
You can catch up with the results of all our previous party members’ surveys by clicking here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems urge government to fund scheme that traces Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Free digital skills training
Reform civil war
I appear to be banned from Belfast Pride
Mike Peters
Roland
Roger Billins
6 Comments
No it doesn’t, that certainly wasn’t my interpretation nor how I answered it.
The best leader for the Lib Dems would be the one we’d be most able to work with in the result of Labour as largest party after a GE.
That a plurality of people appear to have interpreted it your way and voted for Balls doesn’t mean the rest of us did, and it’s possible some of those voting for him actually think he’d be the best to work with as well.
IIRC, I voted for Diane, but that was a positive vote, as while her campaign has been poor, she’d still be the easiest for us to work with in government. If you wanted to ask the question as you interpreted it, why didn’t you simply ask that question?
I do not think that the best Labou leader for the Lib Dems would be the worst one for alabour for a couple of reasons. First of all an effective opposition is vital for a strong democracy and as a Liberal Democrat that is something I strongly believe in. Secondly if there is another hung parliment after the next election I would prefer to have the option of forming a partnership with a revitalised Labour party, if that is supported by the voters.
@MatGB — you’re right, the question can be interpreted in that way. However, the flavour of the comments tells me you were in a small minority in doing so!
While, yes, Diane Abbott has dropped because she hasn’t said or done much impressive, is that because she hasn’t or because we don’t know? I understand a lot of the campaigning has been funded by private donations to the candidates which i feel is deeply wrong, because obviously it places those that have big-money backing at an advantage.
This applies to our own party as well. How a leadership election SHOULD work is that the members are the employers and the selectors, so the members should be in charge. I would suggest therefore, that private funding for anyone who wants to be a leadership candidate should be BANNED. It should be accepted that anyone who becomes a nominated leadership candidate may only communicate through the authorised channels within the party, and they will be set up to give EQUAL coverage to all candidates. After all, whoever heard of a selection panel in which candidates for the job were allowed to use their own money or money given to them to pester the members of the selection panel before they met? It is usual practice – for very good reasons – that candidates are banned from contacting members of the selection panel, and any information about them the panel has in advance is circulated in a way that all candidates get equal amounts of information put out to the panel.
Why don’t these very standard employment practices apply to the positions of leaders of our parties?
“Back in May, Ed Balls was the runaway winner with 47% of the vote. However, his lively campaign appears to have — if not won Lib Dems over — at least shown that the combative Mr Balls could pose a threat to the party if he were elected.”
I disagree that Balls going form 47% thinking he would be the worst possible leader for 38% thinking so is a sign that his “lively campaign appears to have — if not won Lib Dems over — at least shown that the combative Mr Balls could pose a threat to the party”. It could simply be that more Lib Dems have seen Diane Abbot and realised that she’d be even worse!
@MatGB
What a sensible and statesmanlike approach. I am (seriously) humbled. I am in politics to get the right things happening. Clearly we should hope for sensible leaders of other parties who will take things forward, with or without others. And we could be those others.