Unhappy LibDem voters defect to Labour

If today's YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph is to be believed the LibDems are in serious peril.

Anthony King writes the following in his analysis of the poll:

"More than one in three of those who voted Liberal Democrat in last year's general election no longer support the party and a large majority of YouGov's respondents believes that the party is no longer - if it ever was - a credible force.  To some extent, the Liberal Democrats' problems are obviously their own fault. It would be astonishing if a party that within a few weeks lost its leader through alcoholism and its shadow home secretary through sexual impropriety - and then saw a prominent contender for the party leadership publicly contradict his own repeated denials of homosexuality - did not suffer a substantial loss of public esteem."

Professor King goes on to write that the LibDems' biggest problem is the revival of the Tories.  "The Liberal Democrats thrive when both main parties are unpopular," he writes - "Their fortunes flag when either the Tories or Labour - or both - revive."

The glass-half-empty Conservatives will be disappointed that the collapse in LibDem support has largely boosted Labour despite Mr Cameron's aggressive attempts to woo LibDems with pledges on the environment, poverty-fighting and civil liberties.  The glass-half-full Tories will know that this reduction in third party support - if sustained - will see a large swathe of LibDem seats return to the Tory fold at the next General Election.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

In one way, the fact some Lib Dems are peeling off to the Labour party is a good thing.

Cameron has so far wooed Lib Dem waverers, and some of his supporters (not him directly, I hasten to add) seem to think that the recreation of the Liberal Party from the 19th century should be the fundamental goal of his leadership.

Such a view would, IMO, be mistaken. Much of what DC has done has been positive (even if I don't agree with it all).

But we have to be serious about social justice and how Tory policies can help the poor by transforming the way we tackle poverty in the way IDS began to talk about doing, and by so doing attract wavering Labour voters as well as ex Lib Dems if we want to obtain the 43/44% that we need to win.

The tragedy is that when IDS and DC speak about the subject (witness last Weds) the journalists who wet themselves over an environmental commission remain remarkably unmoved. I hate to suggest it is because the media class are socially liberal but have about as much experience of poverty both personally and in their social circle as a snowman does of the Sahara desert, and don't really care that much. And the ones that do have already decided we are the evil mouthpieces of the rich. Ah well.

(I hang my head in shame at the DTelegraph's Poverty? What Poverty? leader piece, which Tim has already disassociated this blog from.)

[RobC]

I'm normally an optimist, but its a little disappointing that the Tories have not gained from LibDems poor performance

[Henry Cook]

hmmm... Mixed messages. I think the move to Labour is softer than the move to us - a moderate Lib Dem recovery in the polls should see us retake the lead. I'd like to see us reach the 40% mark in a reliable poll (YouGov or ICM) in the next couple of months. Hopefully the education bill will throw Labour into disarray, and the Tories will look like the only united and credible party.

[Chris Palmer]

Slightly worrying that Labour are up 4% as a result of Lib Dem losses. Though I suspect those that moved are the "we will never vote Conservative" type or those that voted Lib Dem as an Iraq war protest and are now just going back.

This glass half-full/hall-empty thing always gets me. I'm being really picky here, but we don't go around saying, "I'm 30 years young," or "how young are you?" meaning that anyone who says "how old are you?" is being pessimistic. It's a turn of phrase more often than it is a line of thought.

[Graham Wild]

When was the last time we were on 39%? WOW! Bit dissapointing to see Labout +4... dont really understand that one...?

[Graham Wild]

Though I suppose it could be those anti-war blairites who have forgotten his mass deception of the public and International community?!

[Rob Largan]

A collapse in the Lib Dem support was always going to benefit Labour more than Cosnervatives. Many Lib Dem supporters have been left wingers disappointed with the 'moderation' of New Labour or due to the spin have gone for the nice but dim Lib Dems, now they too have been shown to be sleazy, they naturally return to the Red flag of Labour not Conservative. Anyone who thought otherwise was deluding themselves.

[RobD]

I wonder how many of these ex Lib Dem voters which Labour has picked up are moving to 'Blair's Labour' and would have more difficulty voting for 'Brown's Labour'? There is no way of knowing, but I very much doubt Brown will be able to keep up Labour's popularity with the middle class swing voters which Tony seems to be able to count on, many of these could swing back to the Libs or us.

Also, we can still hope for a Hughes win which would no doubt see more Conservative leaning voters moving towards the light. Hughes may have been in the press for the wrong reasons in the last 48 hours but it has raised his profile and I doubt his bisexuality will be major problem for his target voters.

[Goldie]

Cameron's strategy is not working. It's very disappointing that the collapse of the LibDems is boosting Labour instead of the Conservatives.

Given the lay-of-the-land, for the Tories to have a credible chance of forming the next government, they will need to be ahead of Labour by 5% at least (given the inequities of the electoral map).

Moreover, an opposition is supposed to be more popular than a government during off-election times, if that opposition is to stand a decent chance of winning.

Cameron should be 5 to 10 points ahead. That he is not, and that instead Labour is at 40% is very dire news, and a sign that his modernization strategy, at least as executed, is backfiring.

[Selsdon Man]

The effect of the poll in seats which the Lib Dems have taken from us since 1997 will be huge. If maintained, Lib Dem MP defections will be more likely.

[James Maskell]

The Lib Dems have a month to go before the election ends...their polls are in freefall at the moment. Its a sad time to be a Lib Dem.

[Selsdon Man]

The Government's economic competence rating has dived, as has Blair's personal rating. The voters still do not know Cameron. This is not a good time to be cautious on tax cuts.

[Richard]

If there was an election with those results Labour would still get in with a significant majority due to a flaw in the electoral system (which I still prefer to PR). The Tories need to get more Labour votes or hope the Lib dems will take Labour votes but not in areas where it would allow them to beat the Tories.

[Richard Allen]

I think we are in danger of reading too much into the Lib Dem's plight. We have just witnessed the worse month the Lib Dem's have ever suffered so naturally they are going to suffer in the polls but I don't think the long term damage will be as bad as some seem to think. Once their leadership election is over they can retreat from the limelight and quitely recover. Their great strength lies at local, not national, level.

[David Kehoe]

What this poll says to me is that DC has decontaminated (hence stabalizing in upper thirties)us but still has to offer positive reasons for people to vote for us.

[Rob Largan]

"This is not a good time to be cautious on tax cuts."

Definately agree. Right now a huge chunk of the electorate is up for grabs. They are massively disappointed by Labour both economically and their failure to achieve social reforms. The Lib Dems who were once a sanctuary for the confused and swing voter have been discredited beyond belief. Voters are looking for something new to belief in and place hope for the future. It is time the Conservative Party stood up and took a lead in the agenda. Right now is the best chance in years that a true New Right agenda can be advanced successfully. If Cameron will argue with skill and confidence for individual freedom, economic dynamism, small government and social mobility, people will listen and I think be won over. We must use this small window of opportunity to lead the electorate in the right direction.

[Account Deleted]

It depends which tax cuts.

Cameron should argue for tax cuts in areas which people know make sense - pensions (such as the return of relief on dividends), marriage (which may help pay for itself), and raising the income tax threshold (which disproportionately help those on low incomes), and poss the higher income tax threshold (is it really right someone on 40K pays the same marginal rate as someone on 100-200K?)

Just raising X billion tax cuts makes people think in the abstract, which makes them think we are all about cutting tax above all else and they then become uncomfortable about the implications for how committed we are to, for example, free at the point of use health/education, the basic state pension.

However, regardless of this debate I don't for a minute think DC will do it. Which is a shame.

He confuses the public's view that we only care for the rich with this meaning tax cuts are not acceptable. Tax cuts do have a (small) knock on economic effect which benefits society as a whole, and further they can be structured so that they help everyone.

[Henry Cook]

Why would promising tax cuts make those ex-Lib Dem voters who (if the poll is to be believed) are now backing the Labour Party switch to the Conservatives? If they wanted lower taxes, they would have switched LD to Con, not LD to Lab. Instead we should be focussing on social justice and what Conservatives can do in this area - that is how to win over disillusioned Lib Dems.

I am not against tax cuts per se, but talking about them simply won't bring home the votes.

[Selsdon Man]

"What this poll says to me is that DC has decontaminated (hence stabalizing in upper thirties)us but still has to offer positive reasons for people to vote for us."

As I have commented on other threads recently, Michael Howard peaked ay 39/40% during the first five months of 2004. Mr Cameron will have to maintain those poll ratings for much longer to prove your claim of "decontamination".

[James Hellyer]

Instead we should be focussing on social justice and what Conservatives can do in this area - that is how to win over disillusioned Lib Dems.

As Lib Dem leadership contenders have suggested targetted tax cuts for the poor (for example, Huhme mooted raising the personal allowance to around £9,700), I fail to see that a tax cutting agenda would repel these disillusioned Lib Dems!

[James Maskell]

Tax cuts benefit everyone, even Lib Dems. Tax cuts I can sell and I can do it without any problems. I know the reasoning behind it and its sound.

The fact is that if Lib Dems cant be Lib Dems, they will join Labour even if Labour is mimicking the Conservatives. The liberal tradition is closer to socialism than conservatism.

The Conservatives need to start going for the two other big issues in Britain, education and health. They are the ones people are worried about. A billion pounds worth of debt in health...people are worried their operations will be cancelled. Why arent we jumping on this like a pack of hungry dogs? Especially after the Independent frontpage about cancer in Britain earlier this week.

[tory activist]

"If they wanted lower taxes, they would have switched LD to Con, not LD to Lab."

None of the three parties are offering lower taxes.

[Rob Largan]

The truth of the matter is, we shouldnt take any of these polls too seriously. We must act with self-assured swagger and sound so convinced by our own beliefs that the swing voters will think twice. Many who are in the dont know pile are up for grabs. We shouldnt be pussyfooting around trying to 'regain trust' but should be aggressively arguing our case. Anyway, rant over, going to a school disco to dance away in converse. God Damn!

[Jaz]

"If they wanted lower taxes, they would have switched LD to Con, not LD to Lab."

None of the three parties are offering lower taxes."

No, however, the tories are most likely to cut tax, afterall labour has raised tax and the LDs are the socialist haven.

[Mike Christie]

"Cameron's strategy is not working."

Good God! We have been languishing in the doldrums for best part of a decade and have been treated like a laughing stock in the media for most of that time too.

Cameron has been in his job for seven whole weeks, things are turning around already, the polls are up, the public are interested in the Tories again, and people are saying his strategy isn't working. SEVEN WEEKS!!! Get a grip people please!

[Mac]

Everyone should relax, these polls are great. Cameron has come across as a reasonable guy and has stablised the party in the high 30's. He's only just started, even at the peak of Thatcher they were only getting around 43%. About 55% of the country will never vote for him no matter what, all he can do is the old Tony Blair trick of being a "straight up kind of guy" and hope the public don't take to Brown.
He can't go on about tax cuts. Tax cuts will put him on the back foot as the media will constantly drag up stories of longer hospital waiting lists. It may not be true but he can't do anything that can be spun as taking from the vulnerable. If he wins the election and grows the economy he can then increase thresholds and still spend more on schools and the NHS. As Tony Blair did 10 years ago he has to remove all the sticks Labour can beat him with.
The LibDems will never get back to the mid 20's. A light has been shined on them and people don't like what they see. Cameron can still squeeze more votes from them if he sticks to his course. One point, the party's front bench better be on their best behaviour they can't blow all this goodwill with their own scandal.

[tory activist]

"No, however, the tories are most likely to cut tax, afterall labour has raised tax and the LDs are the socialist haven."

Where is the evidence that the Tories are most likely to cut tax? The Tories have said they are refusing to make a commitment to cut tax. That is the same position as the Labour Party. The last Conservative government raised taxes by a massive amount.

And it doesn't help define Cameron as "conservative" by ridculously suggesting either of the other parties is socialist. All there are wading through centrist mush.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Everyone should relax, these polls are great."

I just entered these respective vote shares into Martin Baxter's Electoral Calculus prediction thingy and the results make very interesting reading indeed.

Labour's majority would increase to 74, although they would only have a net gain of 4 seats - still not 'great' though.

The Conservatives would gain 59 seats, including 8 Scottish seats, 2 Welsh seats and 8 northern seats (I think) and lose none.

The SNP would lose three seats (gaining none) but would become Britain's third party, Plaid Cymru would gain 1 seat (losing none) but would become Britain's fourth party and Respect would lose one seat.

The real eye-opener is what would happen to the Liberal Democrats.

Campbell - gone (Con gain), Hughes - gone (Lab gain), Huhne - gone (Con gain), Oaten - gone (Con gain), Clegg - gone (Con gain), Laws - gone (Con gain), Davey - gone (Con gain), Opik - gone (Con gain), Cable - gone (Con gain), Hemming - gone (Lab gain) etc...

Overall, the Liberal Democrats would lose 60 seats (gaining none obviously) leaving them with Alistair Carmichael and some chap called Charles Kennedy (who would have the last laugh on his backstabbing colleagues after all).

Sorry about the rambling post, I don't know what it says about me that I've nothing better to do on a Friday night than sit at a computer and reel off a load of useless statistics that prove nowt ;-)

[Chris]

Daniel you just made my day! The number of Labour and Tory seats are slightly different on the BBCs swingometer but the Lib Dems remain on two seats over there. Local elections should be interesting if the national polls are reflective of anything...

[Ted]

Mike Christie hear, hear!

It's been 7 weeks - we have risen to 38-40%.

After our performance in the election a few months ago no-one expected us to be pushing Labour hard at this stage.

[Goldie]

Vince-Archer's post proves why this is such a bad result for us.

Whatever the 'swing-o-meter' says obviously the LibDems would NOT lose 60 seats, even if their national share of the vote is exactly as predicted in this poll.

They would hold on to many of those seats purely on the basis of local consitutents' affinity for their MP.

In other words: dozens of those putative Conservative "gains" would fail to materialize.

If this poll is the exact result on Election Day, Cameron would face disaster. On the model he would win 60 seats, but you can easily exclude at least 20 LibDem holds, plus take in the UKIP/Veritas effect (which cost us 25+ seats at the last election and is unlikely to disappear given Cameron's tepid policies), so all in all he would win about 30-40 seats, no more.

Gordon Brown would romp home with an IMPROVED majority.

People who think that DC's little campaign has been effective really need to think again.

The first seven weeks should have produced a MUCH larger swing to us.

Cameron isn't doing particularly well. Howard polled in the high thirties, low forties as well.

[Mac]

I don't mean Labour on 40% is great but 39% is a good figure. In the past Tories usually do about 1 or 2 points better than the polls and Labour 1 or 2 points worse. If Cameron gets up to 41% with Labour on 38% and Labour still end up with a 40 odd seat majority we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands. If Cameron keeps it simple there is no reason his poll numbers should go down. Labour has it all to lose if they keep fighting like ferrets in a sack. The one wrinkle is I'd heard Brown wants to call an election within 90 days of taking over which would mean the public would not really get to know what he is like as PM before voting.

[Jaz]

Goldie, you and I both know that this polling result will never materialize on election day in 2008.

We know the LDs will recover, we know that Labour will again leach voted to a socialist LD. And We know that Cameron is attractive to voters.

I seriously doubt an improved majority for labour.

Its clear that Cameron bashers are back in force... Yet they forget that these are the best polling result in years, we're at 39%! And labour supporters are flip flopping from party to party.

[Sean Fear]

We'll have to wait and see. Cameron is doing better in polls than Howard was at a similar point in his leadership - but not by very much.

One point we need to bear in mind is that a Lib Dem collapse will deliver a couple of dozen seats in our direction - but also entrenches Labour's lead.

[William Norton]

These polls are good - not stunning, not phenomenonally brilliant, not earth shatteringly fantastic - but, good. Since DC would have carried the can for bad polls, I think we should give him the credit for good polls.

The Lib Dems' slump is largely driven by headless-parrot behaviour - but what spooked them into a panic in the first place? Confucis say Mighty Avalanche start with Single Snowflake. Again, it would be churlish to deny DC any credit.

There may be a local incumbent/personal vote for certain Lib Dem MPs - in which case I would expect the true level of Lib Dem support in open constituencies to be lower than this poll is recording, hence the Labour/Con swing in those targets higher.

But that's an academic argument not worth the time or the trouble. Every one said Stephen Twigg had an unshakeable personal vote in Enfield Southgate - and are those clever experts saying sorry now? No, they're just moved on to being clever experts about something else.

The salvation of the Tory Party does not lie in complaining that the new leader has betrayed the great election-winning principles of the past - nor does it lie in systematically "detoxifying" the Conservatives by re-branding, softening, or eradicating anything that looks a bit, y'know, Tory . It lies in competent political campaigning.

DVA etc point out that a potential 60 Lib Dem seats may be in play.

So let's go and play for them.

[PM]

GOLDIE = NEW LABOUR SECRET AGENT?

[Frank Young]

These polls are excellent news for us. It would seem that left wing Lib Dems are defected their support to Labour. Which in political reality probably means the electoral geography is swinging in our favour.

[Sean Fear]

It's a minority viewpoint, but I still believe a total Lib Dem meltdown is not in our interests. I'm quite content to see the Lib Dems on 18-20%, enough for us to regain a fair number of seats from them *and* enough for them to be a thorn in Labour's side.

[Selsdon Man]

Political Calculus is a poor site. I fed in the Yougov opinion poll figures on the eve of the election and it was a long way out. Don't waste your time on it.

[Huntarian]

The Conservatives would gain 59 seats, including 8 Scottish seats, 2 Welsh seats and 8 northern seats (I think) and lose none.
The SNP would lose three seats (gaining none) but would become Britain's third party
I wish!!!!!!!! First that in Scotland we could break out of the becalmed waters of 15.5%. Second that we could have any serious chance of dislodging Ming. Our problem is that in far too many seats in Scotland we are in fourth place, behind the Nats and the Lib-dems, and my glass like Charlie’s is always half full! If we make it into third place in the Dunfermline by election that will be talked of up here of as a major success (we were a poor fourth in 05) Such are our aspirations. The real lesson for this week is the Canadian Conservative Party who stuck to their Tory principles and won a significant victory.

[Ted]

Huntarian
- 36% was a great improvement in Canada but it wasn't a significant victory. Enough voters were scared off by the Liberals scare ads in last couple of days to dent what would have been significant. The CanComs moved significantly towards the centre as compared to 2004 - perhaps not far enough...
- the lesson though is in Quebec where the Canadian conservatives had historically (like Scotland) a large following. That was eaten away by the Bloc (Nats) and the Liberals. The Liberals strength is in major cities (much like Labour), the Bloc hoovered up outside. In this election the Conservatives managed a major re-establishment of support in Quebec. Looking at how they built this campaign would be a good tutorial to the Scots Tories.

[Elena]

I think we all know that the Lib Dems aren't going to go down to 2 seats at the next election. That's wishful thinking. I expect them on the 18-20 mark - they can't improve on 2005, but they should hold on to 40 sseats or so.

The BIG test will be whether they hold onto the seats in the South or the seats in the North. That could really prove decisive in the next election. If it's the former, we may find it difficult to gain the most seats, but if it's the latter the Libs may hold Labour at bay and even split the left wing vote in key marginals. That's why Hughes is the best bet for us.

Yes, Howard did get good polling results for a time, but let's cheer up guys. These polling figures are still very encouraging. The "pendulum effect" will still hang over Labour at the next election, which means it's very unlikely that they, the governing party, would build upon their majority. One of the very few times that happened was in 1983 and I think most people would accept that had much to do with the immense troubles Labour were having at the time, coupled with a Falklands bounce. I cannot accept that Labour will improve their majority at the next election. Electoral Calculus needs to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway.

Cameron has kept us in the high 30's range, and, seeing as it's 4 years before the next election, that's a strong start. Let's not moan guys - enjoy it!

[Frank Young]

Wise words Elena.

There was an interesting poll out during the week which said that a large section of the public were simply unaware of the changes Cameron had made and had no view on him at all. I think it is a salutary lesson. We have an enormous amount of work to do to change perceptions.

[Richard]

"If Cameron gets up to 41% with Labour on 38% and Labour still end up with a 40 odd seat majority we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands."

Which might lead to an utter nightmare - the introduction of PR.

The Tories are doing well to have got as high as 39%. The problem is that the Labour vote isn't falling. We either need to steal more floating Labour votes or hope Hughes swings the Lib Dems to the Left and takes away left-wing Labour votes. Assuming Hughes wins of course.

[Richard Allen]

It's a minority viewpoint, but I still believe a total Lib Dem meltdown is not in our interests. I'm quite content to see the Lib Dems on 18-20%, enough for us to regain a fair number of seats from them *and* enough for them to be a thorn in Labour's side.

If that is a minority viewpoint I wonder what on earth the majority is thinking of. Look at the number of the seats we gained last May as a result of Labour voters going to the Lib Dem's while our vote remained steady. If the Lib Dem's face a serious collapse we could see the reverse happening, and on an even larger scale.

[Mac]

"Look at the number of the seats we gained last May as a result of Labour voters going to the Lib Dem's while our vote remained steady"

We're not talking about our vote remaining steady we're talking about Tories at around 40% and hopefully 43% by election day. Where do you think these voters are coming from, it's not Labour as it is unlikely their vote will fall much below the 36% they got in 05.

Cameron can only realistically get 43% - 45% maximum. If he gets close to that he will have been a success. If he doesn't win Tories have to ask themselves how they ever allowed the situation to arise where Labour can win elections with 4% or 5% less than them. Why are Tory seats bigger?

If Tories win big in England the Scottish PM/West Lothian question is bound to come back more than ever.

[Richard Allen]

We're not talking about our vote remaining steady we're talking about Tories at around 40% and hopefully 43% by election day. Where do you think these voters are coming from, it's not Labour as it is unlikely their vote will fall much below the 36% they got in 05.

The point is that a total Lib Dem meltdown would also boost the Labour vote and probably by far more than our vote. Without a reasonably strong Lib Dem vote we are in big trouble.