oh dear... Lib Dem Support Slumps To 8%

chucky

But the overriding conclusions of the survey are a stunning decline in support for the Liberal Democrats since they entered the coalition with the Conservatives, and a post-election boost for David Cameron and the Tories.

Conservative 42.86%
Labour 23.81%
Liberal Democrat 8.43%
Other 11.33%
Don't know 9.46%
Would not vote 3.60%
Not eligible 0.51%

oh dear... it's not looking too good for the Lib Dems

Mr_Mumble

Meaningless:

survey of 1,554 self-selecting Sky News Panel member

chucky

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Meaningless:

survey of 1,554 self-selecting Sky News Panel member

maybe but what's an average survey size?

this how the vote went at the Election

Conservative 43.85%
Labour 17.26%
Liberal Democrat 18.03%
Other 10.62%
Prefer not to say 5.67%
Did not vote in the General Election 4.57%

compared to this now

Conservative 42.86%
Labour 23.81%
Liberal Democrat 8.43%
Other 11.33%
Don't know 9.46%
Would not vote 3.60%
Not eligible 0.51%

Milarky

Just like the 'dark days' of 1989 when the Greens scored 15% and pushed the LDs into fourth place? Oh, wait a minute, they're in government this time around!

More seriously, people are deservedly anxious when they hear 'cuts, cuts, cuts' every five seconds. The LDs didn't have too many options on 6 May. They could have

1) refused to talk either Labour or Conservatives (thus causing a constitutional crisis and the Pound devalued overnight)
2) accepted Brown's offer (but no majority, so 'crisis' would loom before the ink was dry on any agreement)
3) offered qualified or tacit support to the Conservatives - no 'coalition' in other words (but too uncertain for the markets again)

That's why the 'Coalition' solution appeared the least bad of a very bad set of options.

Now, arguably, Nick Clegg, has messed up the hand he was dealt - becoming 'Tory-lite' overnight. Arguably, the LDs could have maintained their idealogical purity by putting the deal with the Tories (which could still collapse) under constant strain as they pushed every time for more influence. But it's simply too early to judge all this in historical terms.

(Suffice to say the LDs have seen some very low poll ratings down the years - and every party has to contemplate its own demise at some stage)

Personally I feel it's Labour's fault. All that spouting about 'progressive politics' when it suited them and all New Labour ever wanted to do in practice was to monopolise its power base (35% last election) at the expense of their erstwhile 'progressive' allies in the LDs. Now Labour is apparently 'comfortable' with being back in opposition - where they can suggest that they would have to be making all these frightening cuts. And, of course, the average British voter will believe them.

StevieJ

Milarky wrote: »

That's why the 'Coalition' solution appeared the least bad of a very bad set of options.
.

They could have joined a coalition without becoming Tory, increased VAT before election = bad idea, after the election = the only way

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Milarky wrote: »

J They could have

1) refused to talk either Labour or Conservatives (thus causing a constitutional crisis and the Pound devalued overnight)
2) accepted Brown's offer (but no majority, so 'crisis' would loom before the ink was dry on any agreement)
3) offered qualified or tacit support to the Conservatives - no 'coalition' in other words (but too uncertain for the markets again)

That's why the 'Coalition' solution appeared the least bad of a very bad set of options.

This sums it up- what WERE the LDs supposed to do?

Junior partner in a Tory coalition is a million times better than junior partner in a messy coalition of losers plus random extras from fringe nationalist parties to make up the numbers- what a global joke that would have been.

Labour voters have to face up to the fact that they became unpopular and lost. Tory voters have to face up to the fact that not enough of Britain hated Labour enough to vote the Cons back in again. LD voters who thought they were going to get anything other than a partial role in power have to face up to the fact that they are too stupid to be allowed out to the polling stations without adult supervision.

Mr_Mumble

chucky wrote: »

maybe but what's an average survey size?

this how the vote went at the Election

compared to this now

The sample size is fine. Its the self-selection, the pro-active nature of having to respond to an e-mail once you're on the Sky Panel list, that skews the results. Traditional polling, some from last weekend, has the Lib Dems in the low-teens:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Spartacus_Mills

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Meaningless:

survey of 1,554 self-selecting Sky News Panel member

Voodoo Poll alert.

chucky

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

The sample size is fine. Its the self-selection, the pro-active nature of having to respond to an e-mail once you're on the Sky Panel list, that skews the results. Traditional polling, some from last weekend, has the Lib Dems in the low-teens:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

fair enough but 13% is terrible reading for the Lib Dems compared to the 30% they had not so long ago.

it's back to reality for the Lib Dems then.

i would imagine that many people wouldn't automatically associate Nick Clegg with the Lib Dems anymore anyway.

marklv

This is a joke opinion poll. Non-weighted polls have zero value - many of them have UKIP and BNP on double digit backing. Nonsense.

chucky

marklv wrote: »

This is a joke opinion poll. Non-weighted polls have zero value - many of them have UKIP and BNP on double digit backing. Nonsense.

how about these polls that take them from 31% to 13% now
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

regarding the joke comment - it's not funny that the Lib Dems have lost over 60% over their voters...