UK Election: For the 1st time in 104 years the Liberal Democrats are leading Labour & Conservatives

[Turborama]

Something exciting seems to be happening for Liberals in Britain's election campaign.

These reports cite polls that put the Liberal Democrats in front of the two main parties. Ironically these two polls are from Britain's most far right tabloids the Mail and the Sun:

BPIX put Lib Dems in the lead

Posted on April 17th, 2010 by Anthony Wells

There is a BPIX poll in tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday which has topline figures of CON 31%(-7), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 32%(+12). That’s the biggest drop for Conservatives so far, and the biggest surge for the Lib Dems – and it puts the Liberal Democrats up in first place. The Lib Dems were in equal first place in a poll back in 2003, but I think you need to go back to around 1982 to find polls with them (or their predecessor parties) consistently in first place (Update – Tom in the comments has flagged up one poll from 1985 that had the Alliance ahead)

As with ComRes today and YouGov yesterday, all three parties are within 4 or 5 points of each other, so realistically if the polls remain like this it shouldn’t be a surprise to see polls with any of the three parties in the lead.

There is also a OnePoll survey in the People, that shows CON 27%, LAB 23%, LDEM 33%. I have still not confirmed whether these polls have any proper attempt at sampling or political weighting, and would treat it with great scepticism.

From: http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

-

YouGov show Liberal Democrats ahead

Posted on April 18th, 2010 by Anthony Wells

Tonight’s YouGov poll shows the Lib Dem boost continuing. The topline figures are CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3), LDEM 33%(+4), so following on from BPIX yesterday we now have YouGov putting the Lib Dems in the lead. The 32% is the lowest the Conservatives have been with YouGov since the election-that-never-was in 2007, 26% is the lowest Labour have been since the Conservative party conference boost last year.

The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, so with the “Lib Dem breakthrough” dominating the media and the election narrative. It’s quite hard to guess what is going to happen next – on one hand the Lib Dems are likely to face a concerted attack from the other parties and hostile newspapers, on the other hand if they stay at this level there will be a snowballing effect of them being seen to be on a roll, the Lib Dem’s normal weaknesses of being seen as a wasted vote will be whittled away, and if the two main parties start focusing their fire upon the Lib Dems it may well backfire by making them seem negative and the Lib Dems as the real challenger.

From: http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

The Sun, a Murdoch rag which is openly backing the Conservatives, are trying to spin their way out of it, of course. The headline says it all...

Warning as Libs win poll race

By TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor

VOTERS last night rejected the Lib Dems' potty policies - despite the party taking a shock lead in the race to win the General Election.

A YouGov opinion poll for The Sun put support for Nick Clegg's party at a staggering 33 per cent.

It is the first time the former Liberals have been in the lead in a general election race for 104 years.

The Conservatives lag one point behind at 32 per cent, while Labour have tanked on just 26 per cent.

More: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2937300/Lib-Dems-now-in-pole-position.html#ixzz0lVSE9dRw

Guess who's working as the Sun's pollster...

Faux newz & the GOP's very own Frank Luntz.

In a recent interview with David Frost on Al Jazeera English his prediction that the Liberal Democrats would only gain 4 points from 20% to 24/25% Labour 32/33% to 30% and Conservatives would go from down from 38% to 35% has obviously gone awry.

The interview can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-SUbVUQnqs

I can't believe that AJ English are employing him as a political CONtributor and I suspect Murdoch could be having words with him about his job performance after this.

The NYT has an interesting article on what's happening in Britain's election, in which a political analyst describes the Liberal Demcrats' surge as unprecedented...

From: Talk of a Surprise in British Elections

By STEPHEN CASTLE
Published: April 18, 2010

“We are in uncharted territory,” John Curtice, a professor of politics at Strathclyde University in Glasgow, said in a telephone interview. “We have never had this kind of polling during an election campaign. There has never been this kind of surge to the Liberal Democrats.”

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world/europe/19libdem.html?pagewanted=all

[anigbrowl]

1. It's encouraging. I've always preferred the Lib Dems to the other parties

(lived in UK for about a decade). Outright victory is unlikely. But holding the balance of power in a hung parliament would be very very sweet.

[Turborama]

3. They seem like the only party that could offer a change in the right direction

Apart from the Greens, but it's going to be a very long time before they get taken as seriously as they do in countries like Germany.

Being a progressive "greeny", I like their environmental policies. The Guardian have written about them, here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats">Environment is part of the fabric of the Liberal Democrats' election manifesto

They have also written a piece comparing them with the other two, here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/15/general-election-2010-labour-tory-lib-dem-manifesto">How Labour, Tory and Lib Dem green policies measure up

I've lived there too, in London and Devon. whereabouts were you?

[anigbrowl]

7. Mostly in North London

Camden-Tufnell Park area. I moved to the UK when thatcher was still PM and left just before Blair was elected, although I was back for a couple of years later.

[DJ13]

2. Lets hope that their liberals dont become conservatives once in office

Something tells me our country wont be the last to get taken in.

[LeftishBrit]

14. That happened already. Tony Blair!

[mmonk]

4. Interesting.

Maybe this is somewhere my sons might want to live one day.

[Joe Bacon]

5. Frank Luntz is wrong again.

And this is sounding very much like the April 1974 General Election when Liberal Jeremy Thorpe was first in the popularity polls over Heath and Wilson.

This is going to be very interesting since the last time the Liberals were in power was under Ramsay MacDonald's coalition National Government from 1931-1935.

[msongs]

6. gosh I wish the liberal Democrats would be leading in a US election :-) nt

[Odin2005]

8. I hope the Lib-Dems kick some ass over there!

GO WHIGS!!!

[Turborama]

9. These historic poll results should be headline news in British newspapers

But if you had a look at their websites' home pages you wouldn't know anything about them...

The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

The Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

The left leaning Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/

Even The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/


Nothing about it on the BBC's website, either: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Or the Sun's sister TV channel, Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/

ETA I have found an article about it on the website of what looks like a free paper that's given away at London City Airport: http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/lib-dems-grab-shock-lead-polls

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. There has been a lot of coverage

But remember the story of the surge in Lib Dem support has been going since Friday morning - there were 'immediate reaction' polls on the evening of the Thursday debate, which said Clegg had done best in it, and by Friday afternoon a poll of those who had watched the debate had put the Lib Dems in the lead for those people.

On Friday evening a YouGov poll showed the Lib Dems in 2nd place, only a point or 2 behind the Tories, and that was the first poll (of all people) to show the big leap (up 8%, with Tories and Labour dropping 4 and 3%) - and it was heavily covered in all media. The BPIX poll came out on Saturday evening - while it's somewhat symbolic, statistically it's more or less the same as the previous YouGov poll, and so it's not the headline now.

[Turborama]

11. Today's YouGov poll for the Sun has them in 1st place now, too

CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3), LDEM 33%(+4)

Not being in the UK I totally understand I'm not getting the full picture of how this is all being covered but it's starting to look like a pattern is emerging and it seems strange that the new YouGov poll doesn't make it onto the homepage of at least the Guardian and the Independent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. That's the 2nd one you posted in the OP, that was published Sunday evening

There's a limit to how much the media reports polls done for other organisations that they are then just re-reporting. However, if they have a poll of their own, they'll give it more prominence - eg The Guardian now has, on it's front page (2nd story, after the re-opening of some UK airspace):

Lib Dems surge 10 points in poll

Last updated 13 minutes ago
Labour forced into third place for first time ever in Guardian/ICM voting series, which began in 1984

[Turborama]

15. I was pointing it out because you mentioned Friday's one and this latest one takes them in front

I find it deliciously ironic that these results are coming from Murdoch's Sun, I would have thought they'd avoid publishing it. I know Faux wouldn't publicize a Rasmussen poll that favors the Democrats.

Thank you for the Guardian link, I find the comments being posted in there these during this election as interesting as the articles.

Also, I find it totally bizarre that Labour could still get the most seats even though they are polling last.



Do you think a hung Parliament with a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would mean they would work towards proportional representation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The Sun's been publishing a YouGov poll every weekday

so they can hardly avoid publishing it now (I'd guess they have a contract to publish right up to the election). They have tried to spin it as much as possible - "the Lib Dems' potty policies" and the headline of a 'warning'. I think they may have been able to ask for the supplementary questions, which asked whether various Lib Dem policies were supported - to be able to say "but the policies are unpopular".

Yeah, the current system could look really bad if Labour gets most with the 3rd most votes. Basically, the projections based on uniform swings say the Tories must beat Labour by about 6% to get more seats (and the Lib Dems need to beat the Tories by about 7%, and Labour by 11%, to get the most seats). But such projections do become less and less reliable, the bigger the swings are.

But Luntz's guess of Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 24/25% shouldn't be counted out yet. I think the Lib Dem surge was "hey look, he's competent after all, we just didn't know him, and we could do with a change", and the novelty and enthusiasm after the first ever TV debate will wear off a bit. But again, seat projections from that and the current poll results aren't that different - from the same predictor the Guardian uses, for Luntz's:

Conservative 35% 259 seats (+61)
Labour 30% 286 seats (-70)
Liberal Democrats 25% 74 seats (+12)
Others 10% 13 seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)

Or the BPIX poll:

Conservative 31% 224 seats (+26)
Labour 28% 273 seats (-83)
Liberal Democrats 32% 122 seats (+60)
Others 9% 13 seats (+1)
Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)

or the Sunday night/Monday morning YouGov/Sun:

Conservative 32% 239 seats (+41)
Labour 26% 247 seats (-109)
Liberal Democrats 33% 132 seats (+70)
Others 9% 14 seats (+2)
Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)

Each one has Labour with the most seats, then Con, then Lib Dem (and barely any change with the 'other' parties). In all cases, Lib Dems+Con, or Lib Dems+Labour, would be a majority coalition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. One more thing: every online bookmaker thinks the Tories will get the most seats

and they're fairly confident about that, judging by their odds.

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/next-uk-general-election/most-seats

Labour odds for getting the most seats are between 3/1 and 4/1. It works out, after allowing for the bookmaker's profit, at roughly 75% chance of Tories getting the most, 20% Labour, 5% Lib Dems. So they expect the Tories to get back a larger lead over Labour.

[Turborama]

19. Thanks for the insight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8633655.stm">According to the BBC the Lib Dems continue to be on the rise in YouGov polls:

The YouGov survey for the Sun suggested the Lib Dems were up three percentage points from Tuesday on 34%. The Tories were down two to 31% and Labour fell one to 26%.

What percentage do the Lib Dems have to reach before they start looking like a possible majority? Judging by what you said above, would I be right in thinking that if they gain 2 more points and the Cons drop a couple then we could be looking at a possible across the board Lib Dem victory?


BTW did you see this Guardian article about the anti-Clegg push polling that's been going on? It's got Luntz' fingerprints all over it...

Mystery YouGov poll looks for Nick Clegg's weaknesses

Telephone survey for unnamed client has brought objections from Liberal Democrats about loaded questions

Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent

One of the biggest political pollsters is conducting a survey of voters to establish the best lines of attack on the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the wake of his meteoric rise since last week's leadership debate.

YouGov, which is running a daily opinion poll for the Sun, has been asking voters what would be most likely to put them off voting for the Liberal Democrats.

The poll was commissioned privately and YouGov has refused to confirm the identity of its client. But it did confirm that it polls for the Labour party, the Conservatives and the Scottish National party.

One of the surveys being connducted by telephone as recently as Sunday, and subsequently leaked on the internet, asked 17 questions about the Liberal Democrats and asked people to rate a series of statements according to how likely they were to affect their voting intentions.

One statement read: "Nick Clegg says the other parties are to blame for the MP scandals, he has taken money from a criminal on the run, many of his MPs have been found guilty of breaking the rules and his own party issued guidance on how to fiddle the expenses system."

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/19/yougov-survey-nick-clegg-attack

[ihavenobias]

12. At some point I'd really like to learn more aboug how elections work in various other countries.

I know a little about little, but not nearly enough. I know Cenk is also interested specifically in how campaigns are funded in the UK versus here in the US, and how the special interest influences differ (in size and type).

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. The money is less in the UK, but that doesn't mean there isn't influence

And it'll be interesting to see if election spending has a noticeable effect.

The first thing to remember is that TV (and radio) adverts aren't allowed. So that cuts off one major avenue of competitive spending. Instead, parties get a number of 'party election broadcasts' - 5 minute slots on the major channels to do what they want with, broadcast for free (they pay for whatever production costs there are). The number they get is based on their number of candidates across the country, and the votes they got in the previous election.

The Tories are thought to have most money to spend:

Ashcroft's election war-chest targets marginals

Saturday, 27 February 2010

An analysis of the accounts of Tory associations in those constituencies by The Independent shows they received a massive influx of cash from Conservative headquarters in 2007 and 2008. More than 50 were handed a total of £1,145,484 over the two years. Local donations, bequests and fundraising accounted for a further £4,983,460, resulting in a joint income of £6,128,944 in those associations.
...
The Tories' financial muscle was underlined this week when they disclosed almost £10.5m in gifts towards their election war chest in the last three months of 2009. Labour collected £4,962,886 over the period, while the Liberal Democrats received £1,055,717.

The Conservatives will spend close to the £18m legal limit in the general election campaign – more than double the amount Labour is expected to raise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashcrofts-election-warchest-targets-marginals-1912407.html

Lord Ashcroft is a very rich businessman who arranged his international lifestyle so that he doesn't pay British tax on the millions he earns outside Britain - he has dual nationality with Belize (he was even their UN amabassador at one time - the PM of Belize said last year "His net worth may well be equal to Belize's entire GDP" - his influence there is huge). And he has given several million to the Tories over the past few years, and has basically bought himself a place in their foreign policy team - he flies them in his private jet to international meetings.

The question is whether the Tories' money can win them the votes they need. Ashcroft has concentrated it on the marginal seats, but there is some limit on what can be spent in each constituency, that I can't find right now.

The Tories can afford more billboards, but the arrival of TV debates has suddenly given the Lib Dems equal time in a very public format - the viewing figures for the 1st debate were about 1 in 3 of the likely total of voters (compared to the party election broadcasts, which most people tend to avoid). Sad to say, this may be because people have got used to TV shows like "Britain's Got Talent", and look on it as a spectacle like that. Other spending is things like leaflets - I'm in a constituency in a genuine contest, and I get a leaflet from either the Tories or the Lib Dems more or less every day (Labour got 8% of the vote here last time, so they've given up long ago).