Pollwatch Day 15 #GE2010 – Lib Dems still in 1st or 2nd place with 26-34% in today’s polls

Four new polls reported tonight – and the Lib Dem surge is holding up:

    Populus in The Times … CON 32%(-4), LAB 28%(-5), LIB DEM 31%(+10)
    Angus Reid for PoliticalBetting … CON 32%(nc), LAB 23%(-1), LIB DEM 33%(+1)
    YouGov in The Sun … CON 31%(-2), LAB 26%(-1), LIB DEM 34%(+3)
    ComRes for the Independent/ITV … CON 35%(+3), LAB 26%(-2), LIB DEM 26%(-2)

The Lib Dems are above 30% in three of the four polls; only ComRes has us below 30%, though as Anthony Wells notes: “ComRes’s fieldwork was done on Sunday and Monday, so this poll is actually a day older than the Angus Reid, Populus and YouGov data we’ve seen”. Anthony suggests it might well be an outlier of a poll, and who am I to disagree?

The UK Polling Report ‘poll of polls’ is still lagging behind the Lib Dem surge, today showing:

    CON 34%, LAB 28%, LIB DEM 27%

We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office! update:
The unofficial Lib Dem Facebook fan group broke the 100,000 mark just yesterday. As I type its membership stands at 120,888 members. Pictured, right, is my favourite image uploaded today.

Prize for most sticking-my-finger-in-my-ears-lah-lah-can’t-hear-the-polls post of the day: The Daily Telegraph’s Ben Brogan’s So where is the yellow surge?
Ben used to be an ace political reporter for the Daily Mail (not a complete contradiction in terms), but since defecting to the Telegraph seems to be self-advertising every day to be appointed the Tories’ spinner-in-chief. Today’s post is the latest evidence of his sad decline:

I’ve spent the day talking to MPs and candidates in constituencies around the country, and while I get a range of opinions about where the Tories have gone wrong and what the outcome might be on May 6, there is a uniform response when I ask whether the Lib Dems are doing better out there: the answer appears to be ‘no’.

That’s right, Ben. Who needs polls when we’ve got Tory anecdotes?

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

19 Comments

  • ‘Prize for most sticking-my-finger-in-my-ears-lah-lah-can’t-hear-the-polls post of the day’ – This made me lol.

  • Remember Heseltine in the 97 election explaining that a Labour surge was definitely not what he was finding on the doorstep?

  • Yes! Four Generals have come out in support of a review into whether Britain needs a nuclear deterrent:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7103318.ece

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7103196.ece

    So, get Nick on Speed dial NOW. He needs to mention this on Thursday in the debate!

  • The Lib Dems are enjoying a boost and its anyone’s guess if it will hold up or not. Personally I don’t want to see a hung parliament where Clegg jumps into bed with Gordon Brown. Now I don’t support Tory, Labour or the Lib’s but Cameron is right when he says if you want change then a vote for the Libs will give you Labour.

    Nick Clegg talks of the old politics in the UK but his party is part of that as well. The Libs have been around for 100 years or more either as a Government or in opposition. I do like Nick Clegg but some of his policies are far to radical and daft and shows the immaturity of the party.

    I stay in Leith (Edinburgh) where the Lib/Dems are targeting the seat from Labour and they tell a big lie to the voters when they say only the Libs can defeat Labour in this seat. In fact in the European election it was the SNP who came out in front and that is who I will be voting for and hopefully kick Labour out of this area.

    Old Scottish proverb: Never trust a Liberal Democrat, they would steal yer grannies knickers.

  • How much did Gordon Lamb House pay you to type that spiel, Allan?

  • Alex, those generals are just playing the old inter-service rivalry game.

    If you read the article properly those old codgers think that money saved on Trident would be spent on the Army, they’re looking out for number 1

    Rather than Nick pointing out these 4 generals who are out for themselves, he’ll need to stop mentioning that £100bn figure propagated by CND, and have some idea of what this cheaper alternative is!

  • 1. How do you know the Generals are out for themselves? How do you know they’ve not got the best interests of the army in mind? I mean, everyone but Gordon Brown agrees that the troops in Afghanistan have been underfunded.

    2. Nice that you think describing the Generals as “old codgers” is acceptable. I doubt many people agree. Do you work for the same lobbying firm as Allan above? Who asks you to smear the Generals: labour or the Tories?

    3. If you read the article properly, you’ll see the Generals also mention the “state of the public finances” as a reason to look at not replacing Trident.

    4. One idea of a slimmed down deterrent is Astute. So get your facts straight.

    5. Why stop mentioning £100 billion if it came from CND? To you have evidence against that figure or are you doing a guilt by association smear?

    6. Even if that figure’s too high, the General’s say it will cost more than £80 billion.

    Try again.

  • Is the intention to spend the savings from Trident on conventional armed forces? I see nothing in the LibDem policy to indicate this, it’ll be used to pay off the debt. Look up the term ‘inter-service rivalry’. I’m a mere voter, I can call who I like a codger!

    A slimmed down Astute? An astute with cruise missile would need to be in such numbers or it wouldn’t be a deterrent at all. Easily shot down. Little savings at all.

    Why stop mentioning CND? Because the Lib Dems are trying to become the government, they should be relying on MoD figures of nearer 40bn than a group with such an obvious reason to exagerrate.

    The generals say £80bn, so not the £100bn Nick says then? He’s got to stick to facts to be credible on this.

    I’m no lackey or lobbyist by the way just a floating voter, the Lib Dems would get my vote because their policies blow the other parties out of the water but I am concered about your defence policy as I’ve seen nothing mentioned but cuts. If I don’t vote LibDem, i’ll vote Green, now they’re hardly likely to bother with lobbyists are they?

  • Alex. You had me confused when you asked ” How much did Gordon Lamb House pay you to type that spiel, Allan?”
    I googled Gordon Lamb House and I see it is a office building in Edinburgh which is also part of the SNP’s HQ.

    You see this is why voters like myself are fed up with politics. We go to the bother of expressing our opinions and when they hit a nerve we are accused of being part of another party or working for them. The truth of the matter is you Lib/Dems are just the same as Iain Dale, Labour list etc and only want to read stuff that suits your own agenda.

  • Andrew Suffield 21st Apr '10 - 2:19am

    have some idea of what this cheaper alternative is

    I don’t think you understand.

    This is not about “we must replace Trident with a cheaper alternative”.

    This is about “we must investigate alternative possibilities based on new policy objectives that do not include being able to turn Moscow into a glassy pit”.

    The Labour and Tory party line on this is not “we know that Trident is the best option available”, it is “we must continue to be prepared for the imminent Soviet invasion, because the situation is unchanged from 1982”.

    Maybe Trident is the best answer. Maybe it isn’t. I don’t know, and neither do you, because it’s all classified. Labour and the Tories don’t know either, because they have refused to have the Ministry of Defence investigate the question of what options could satisfy reduced policy objectives.

    The Lib Dems are not calling for an immediate scrapping of Trident, or even for the nuclear deterrent to be scrapped. They are calling for the replacement project, which is still in the early stages, to present alternatives based on reduced objectives that do not include maximum assured destruction against the USSR. The newspapers like to say “will not replace Trident”, but the policy is actually “will not replace Trident with an equivalent system based on objectives from the 1980s”.

    Whatever your views on the validity of a nuclear deterrent, the Lib Dem position does not require them to propose alternatives (which would be impossible, since it’s all classified), and is really quite difficult to argue with. The cost question is speculative, but it seems likely that a replacement system with lesser aims would cost less. Nobody knows how much less. They can’t, because Labour and the Tories blocked any attempts to find out.

    Keep in mind that whatever happens, the next Parliament will only procure contracts and allocate initial development funding. The current Trident system will stay in service for another 40 years at least. There will be many more elections before then, and many different governments changing the plans. The only significant decision made by the next Parliament will be whether or not to commission an investigation into alternatives.

    So, do you really support the Labour and Tory position that there should be no consideration of alternatives?

  • Allan:

    You come blazing in here saying that Clegg wants to jump into bed with Brown, and that “Libs will give you Labour”, and then you have the audacity to complain of being “accused of being part of another party”.

    “The truth of the matter is you Lib/Dems are just the same as Iain Dale, Labour list etc and only want to read stuff that suits your own agenda.”

    Well no, we’d just appreciate it if you’d stop lying for England (or in this case, Scotland) by claiming we want a coalition with Labour.

    Andy:

    As I said, spending Trident money on army instead is only one of the suggestions of the Generals. But let’s say those billions are all spent on reducing the deficit instead of Trident. Don’t you think using the Trident money to help pay down the deficit means less money has to be cut from NHS, schools, police, defence etc?

  • Truly truly disgraceful smear article over the Michael Brown donation in Guardian CiF today.

  • The tabloid Labservative proxy sh1storm hitting the LibDems & Nick Clegg now is going to backfire spectacularly.

    David Yelland seems to have quite deliberately given Nick some fantastic stuff about how the LibDems are such a threat to Murdoch, massive amounts of cash pour into the Labservative coffers versus £20k for the LibDems, & near-deranged distortions of LibDem policies, coupled with truly deranged personal birther-style attacks on his ‘Britishness’ really is the way to generate a landslide….as I’m sure Nick realises. Can’t wait…..

  • Anthony Aloysius St 21st Apr '10 - 8:37am

    “Maybe Trident is the best answer. Maybe it isn’t.”

    But party policy is NOT to replace it with an equivalent system, isn’t it?

    Personally I would favour a policy of not replacing it at all. I must say I thought the weakest part of Clegg’s performance in the last debate was when he sounded almost apologetic about the Trident policy when the other two ganged up on him. (“All I’m saying is …”)

    Now the policy has been adopted, a forceful argument has to be made that it’s NOT necessary to have a like-for-like replacement. It’s a shame that Ming Campbell’s review has not put the party in a position to indicate what kind of replacement there should be.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 21st Apr '10 - 8:43am

    “The tabloid Labservative proxy sh1storm hitting the LibDems & Nick Clegg now is going to backfire spectacularly.”

    We’ve had several days of the right-wing press attacking the Lib Dems now, and it doesn’t seem to have had any adverse effect on the party’s opinion poll ratings. In fact, the ratings have continued to rise.

    The average rating in the 4 polls released on Saturday was 29%; in the 5 polls released on Monday, 30%; in the 4 polls released yesterday, 31% (and if the older “roly poly” ComRes poll is excluded, 33% – to the Tories’ 32%).

  • Alex.. Thanks for your reply. I only read the papers and watch TV debates and the current theme is you guys in the Lib/Dems would jump into bed with Labour if we had a hung parliament, its not me lying but expressing an observation from the MSM and even by the lukewarm response by some in the Lib/Dems when they are asked the question regarding who they would prefer to go into government with in the case of a hung parliament.

    I don’t dislike the Lib/Dems, far from it, in fact I would gladly see them form the next UK gov (even though some of your polices are too radical)but on their own as to being part of Labour which we have been subjected to for 13 long tedious years.

    At this present time I remain highly sceptical of the good in which a hung parliament would do for this country. We need change, real change.

  • ferrand stobart 21st Apr '10 - 4:05pm

    Conservative policy on “cuts” – waste reduction
    I f in any operation/organisation waste/cost control procedures are already in place the amount of waste/excess cost is already measured, and can be reported. If such procedures are NOT in place, the experience of many years indicates the probability of a 12-15% cost/waste reduction potential once the procedures have identified it.

    The Conservatives know this, they cannot quantify “savings” at present as there are few procedures in place in the Public Services to do this.BUT EQUALLY DUE TO THE LACK OF THOSE PROCEDURES – WHICH IS KNOWN – THEY CAN ESTIMATE THE LIKELY POTENTIAL, AND THEN “MARKET” A PROPORTION OF IT AS THEY ARE DOING.

    If anyone wants to know what these procedures look like see
    http://herehydro.weebly.com/data-files-downloads.html and download supvcostcont02.ppt – third item and look at the slide notes too.
    G Brown does not like them as they are a “bottom up” not a “top down” procedure

  • Andrew Suffield 22nd Apr '10 - 7:20am

    Now the policy has been adopted, a forceful argument has to be made that it’s NOT necessary to have a like-for-like replacement.

    Well, a like-for-like replacement of Trident means maintaining the core goal of being able to nuke the USSR. I don’t think it’s very challenging to make a case that this is not necessary.

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 Avatarexpats 23rd May - 12:35pm
    Mick Taylor 23rd May '19 - 8:39am........ Mt wife and I abandoned the Guardian once it started telling lies about LidDems in government.......... Which lies...
  • User Avatarcrewegwyn 23rd May - 12:17pm
    What is the significance of the photograph? Is one of them Mr Cashman? If so, who is the other man and how is he relevant?...
  • User AvatarTony Greaves 23rd May - 11:34am
    Don't get too carried away. All the objective signs are that today will show some genuine progress, but it's not going to be about us...
  • User AvatarPeter Hirst 23rd May - 11:04am
    The challenge is to draw out of Nigel Farage what he actually believes and how he intends to go about achieving it. He excels in...
  • User AvatarGlenn 23rd May - 11:02am
    William Francis Nowhere voted remain or leave. It was a one person one vote referendum, not a general election with boundaries deciding the outcome. That...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 23rd May - 10:52am
    I'm curious to know what "lies" Mick Taylor thinks the Guardian told about the Lib Dems in Government - and did he ever complain to...