grab our rss feed

stephentall.org

The Collected Stephen Tall

LDV doesn’t do statporn, but if we did (August ’10)

Sep.03, 2010 in Politics Leave a Comment

… We’d say a big thank you to the 47,689 ‘absolute unique visitors’* who read Liberal Democrat Voice in August.

Though that’s a touch down on our July figure of c.50,000, it’s up some 143% on the equivalent figure for August ’09 of c.20,000.

This brings our absolute unique visitor readership for the last year to date (1 Sept 2009 – 31 August 2010) to 636,846, some 89% higher than the equivalent figure for 2008-09 of 336,902.

The 5 top-read stories during the month were:

  1. Knowsley Council pays Labour over £250,000 for conference appearances (11) by Mark Pack
  2. Coalition puts up strong defence on IFS report (84) by Iain Roberts
  3. Tim Farron MP writes … Labour’s staggering hypocrisy on the Alternative Vote (66) by Tim Farron MP
  4. Opinion: why we should wish Labour well (102) by George Kendall
  5. Those Kennedy defection rumours (38) by Iain Roberts

And the top 5 traffic sources for Lib Dem Voice in July were:

Whether you’re a regular here, or an occasional ‘popper-by’, we’re delighted you looked in.

  • If you want to keep up-to-date with LDV in the future, then why not sign up for our daily email alerts: easy-to-navigate links to LDV articles delivered to your inbox every morning;
  • If you enjoy reading LDV, why not try writing for LDV?
  • If you’re a party member, don’t forget to check out our private members’ forum, which also includes being polled for our regular members’ surveys;
  • And if you value LDV’s work throughout the year, please consider making a donation to our running costs: this is a not-for-profit website, and the whole team donates their time and effort free of charge. Any money you choose to give will help make LDV even better in the future.

* Google Analytics’ term: it broadly means people using about 48,000 different computers visited LDV at least once. Some people may be counted more than once (eg, home and work computer), whilst some people may not be counted (eg, two different people use the same computer, or someone reads the site through a feed reader without ever actually visiting it).

@stephentall’s weekly Twitter updates for 2010-09-03

Sep.03, 2010 in Twitter Leave a Comment

LDVideo: Tongue-tied politicians – schadenfreude special edition

Sep.02, 2010 in Politics Leave a Comment

We’ve all done it… whether at a party chatting someone up, or in a job interview, or at a major presentation. That moment when your mind goes blank, and you realise you have absolutely nothing coherent to say, but everyone’s still looking at you. Most of us at least have the comfort of knowing onyl a few have witnessed our mortification. Not so the politicians.

The latest victim is the Republicans’ Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, who — when given one minute to shine in front of an expectant nation — realised she had absolutely nothing to say. And seeing her squeeeeeze that nothing out for 60 seconds is pretty excruciating:


(Also available on YouTube here. Hat-top: Political Wire.)

For our second clip, let’s revert to the UK, and savour again that moment when then Tory Welsh secretary John Redwood realised he would be expected to sing the national anthem of the country he was governing:


(Also available on YouTube here.)

And finally, one from even further back in the archives, and again over the pond — Admiral James Stockdale dries up completely in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate. Relish especially the moment he manages to emit an embarrassed chuckle when mentioning the words Vietnam War. I don’t know a huge amount about US politics, but I’m guessing that’s considered something of a no-no:


(Also available on YouTube here.)

Daniel Radcliffe on Nick Clegg: he still has the magic touch

Sep.02, 2010 in Politics 2 Comments

Harry Potter star, actor Daniel Radcliffe, was one of the Lib Dems’ star supporters in the lead-up to the election — and it seems he’s sticking by Nick Clegg and the party in government, according to the Voice’s favourite online political read, ShowbizSpy.com:

“I’m a very big fan… I don’t agree with everything he says, but of all the party leaders, he was the one I voted for,” Daniel said. “I thought he was a great speaker and very charismatic and very statesmanlike.

“I’m glad that he is still in a prominent position in British politics because I think he could make a great contribution. He comes from absolutely the right place in terms of what his values are.”

It’s nice to know the sorting hat still reckons Dan belongs in the Lib Dem house.

No FT, no comment? Not for me…

Sep.02, 2010 in Media, Politics 1 Comment

I’ve been quoted twice, in successive days, by the Financial Times – a career highlight I can’t allow to pass un-self-hyped.

Yesterday, the FT covered the publication this week on Lib Dem Voice of the results of our members’ survey, which was completed by almost 600 Lib Dem members. Under the surprisingly accurate/straight headline, Lib Dem members give poll boost to Clegg — you can tell this was the FT: any other paper would have searched its damnedest to pick out a negative slant — both Mark Pack and myself are quoted:

Nick Clegg and his fellow senior Liberal Democrats have been given a timely boost ahead of a potentially fractious party conference by the results of a survey showing that support for Mr Clegg among party members remains high. …

Just over half thought the government was implementing a significant part of the Lib Dem manifesto but they worried that the leadership was not being forthright enough about its successes. Four out of five of those polled believed that the biggest immediate danger for the party was failing to communicate how Lib Dem policies were making a difference in the government.

Stephen Tall, co-editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, called it a “warning sign” for the party leadership. He said: “The message from Lib Dem members seems clear. They support the coalition, but want to see Nick Clegg and his fellow ministers trumpeting those achievements which are the result of the Lib Dems being in government.”

He called on the party to be more willing to criticise its Tory partners, saying the leadership needed to be “more upfront about where we continue to disagree with the Conservatives”.

And then today, I find myself quoted again, this time in the context of Tony Blair’s memoirs which I pre-reviewed yesterday.

The article, Literary establishment scorns ‘trite’ style, looks at how Mr Blair’s prose has been judged — which seems to me to be rather a secondary consideration in a political memoir:

There was even some support from his traditional political opponents, some of whom praised his authentic style. Stephen Tall, co-editor of the Liberal Democrat Voice website, said: “The book – like it or loathe it – is very clearly Tony Blair’s own work. As a result there are some jaw-droppingly clunking phrases . . . but, ultimately, so what?”

I’m not 100% sure that sound-bite snippet quite captures me at my eloquent best. But, hey, my name’s in print in the FT… so, erm, so what?

EXCLUSIVE: How party members rate the performances of leading Lib Dems

Sep.02, 2010 in Politics 2 Comments

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of a variety of key issues, and what you make of the Lib Dems’ and Government’s performance to date. Almost 600 party members have responded, and we’ve been publishing the full results of our survey over the past few days.

Today, in the final part of our survey, we focus on the performances of the leading lights of the Liberal Democrats – those of our MPs in the cabinet, those occupying ministerial positions, and other leading Lib Dems:

How would you rate the performances of the following leading Liberal Democrats and government ministers?

Full results are published below, but here’s three key lists for those who want to cut to the chase… (with July 2010 ratings in brackets)

Top 5 Lib Dem performers in the Government:

  • Nick Clegg +60% (+65%)
  • Vince Cable +60% (+60%)
  • Chris Huhne +59% (+51%)
  • Lynne Featherstone +54% (+38%)
  • Norman Baker +28% (+24%)

Little has changed since last time we asked our sample of party members last month… Nick has dropped 5%, but remains, by a nose ahead of Vince, the most popular Lib Dem in the country. Lynne Featherstone’s rating has jumped from +38% to +54%, doubtless in part thanks to the good publicity she achieved for ‘clamping down’ on rogue wheel clampers. Norman Baker is the new face in our top 5 – not particularly because he has shot up the charts, but because Danny Alexander’s approval rating has dropped from +37% to +26%, a delayed response it seems to his part in the Coalition Government’s emergency austerity budget.

Bottom 5 Lib Dem performers in the Government:

  • Edward Davey +11%
  • Jeremy Browne +11%
  • Michael Moore +6%
  • Paul Burstow +4%
  • Nick Harvey +3%

Las month I conceded this list was a tad unfair, citing in particular Alistair Carmichael in the Whips office as someone “unlikely to have much of a public platform on which to shine.” So no prizes for guessing which MP this week escapes the bottom 5, climbing (for no particular reason I can discern) to an approval rating of +12%. In his place, drops Paul Burstow, whose approval has fallen from +10% to +4%, a reaction doubtless against his part in the Coalition’s new health proposals. As I noted last month: “the list stands as a reminder to all our Lib Dem ministers of the value of communicating effectively with party members about the work they’re undertaking on behalf of the party, even if it isn’t making the front pages.” For the record, all Lib Dem government ministers are still showing net positive approval ratings.

And here’s how other leading Lib Dems score:

  • Simon Hughes, Deputy Leader +60% (+55%)
  • Ros Scott, Party President +30% (+31%)
  • Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the London Assembly +20% (+17%)
  • Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats +18% (+17%)
  • Fiona Hall, Leader of the UK Lib Dem MEPs +8% (+4%)
  • Tavish Scott, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats +2% (+7%)

Simon Hughes as Deputy Leader is now rated among the most popular Lib Dems overall, with only Nick and Vince’s approval ratings higher. Party members appear to approve his delicate tightrope-walking act of representing the views of the Lib Dems in the media while trying not to bring down the Coalition. There are few other major changes, though it’s worth highlighting Caroline Pidgeon’s popularity as leader of the Lib Dem group in London: +20% approval after just a few months in the job speaks to appreciation of her abilities. In fairness to our leaders in Scotland, Wales and Europe, though, it should be noted that our sample of party members tends to be skewed towards London and the south.

As promised, here are the results in full …

Lib Dem cabinet ministers and government ministers:

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister
Very effective 28%
Quite effective 50%
Quite ineffective 12%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 4%
Net effectiveness +60% (+65%)

Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Very effective 29%
Quite effective 48%
Quite ineffective 14%
Very ineffective 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 7%
Net effectiveness +60% (+60%)

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Very effective 20%
Quite effective 54%
Quite ineffective 12%
Very ineffective 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 11%
Net effectiveness +59% (+51%)

Lynne Featherstone, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) for the Home Office
Very effective 23%
Quite effective 43%
Quite ineffective 8%
Very ineffective 4%
Don’t know / No opinion 22%
Net effectiveness +54% (+38%)

Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Transport
Very effective 9%
Quite effective 34%
Quite ineffective 11%
Very ineffective 4%
Don’t know / No opinion 42%
Net effectiveness +28% (+24%)

Steve Webb, Minister of State to the Department for Work and Pensions
Very effective 10%
Quite effective 30%
Quite ineffective 9%
Very ineffective 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 47%
Net effectiveness +28% (+25%)

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Very effective 13%
Quite effective 42%
Quite ineffective 20%
Very ineffective 9%
Don’t know / No opinion 16%
Net effectiveness +26% (+37%)

Sarah Teather, Minister of State for the Department for Education
Very effective 11%
Quite effective 34%
Quite ineffective 16%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 33%
Net effectiveness +23% (+22%)

David Heath, Parliamentary Secretary (Deputy Leader) to the Office of the Leader of the Commons
Very effective 10%
Quite effective 16%
Quite ineffective 7%
Very ineffective 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 64%
Net effectiveness +16% (+22%)


The Rt Hon. Lord McNally, Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice
Very effective 9%
Quite effective 22%
Quite ineffective 7%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 56%
Net effectiveness +18% (+15%)

Andrew Stunell, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to the Department for Communities and Local Government
Very effective 7%
Quite effective 20%
Quite ineffective 10%
Very ineffective 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 59%
Net effectiveness +12% (+16%)

Alistair Carmichael, Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Commons
Very effective 7%
Quite effective 14%
Quite ineffective 6%
Very ineffective 3%
Don’t know / No opinion 71%
Net effectiveness +12% (+8%)

Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Very effective 6%
Quite effective 22%
Quite ineffective 12%
Very ineffective 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 55%
Net effectiveness +11% (+9%)

Jeremy Browne, Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Very effective 5%
Quite effective 20%
Quite ineffective 9%
Very ineffective 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 61%
Net effectiveness +11% (+8%)

Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland
Very effective 4%
Quite effective 19%
Quite ineffective 11%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 60%
Net effectiveness +6% (+9%)

Paul Burstow, Minister of State for the Department of Health
Very effective 4%
Quite effective 19%
Quite ineffective 13%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 57%
Net effectiveness +4% (+10%)

Nick Harvey, Minister of State (Minister for the Armed Forces) for the Ministry of Defence
Very effective 3%
Quite effective 15%
Quite ineffective 10%
Very ineffective 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 67%
Net effectiveness +3% (+2%)

Other leading Lib Dems:

Simon Hughes, Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons
Very effective 36%
Quite effective 39%
Quite ineffective 9%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 9%
Net effectiveness +60% (+55%)

Ros Scott, Party President
Very effective 16%
Quite effective 33%
Quite ineffective 13%
Very ineffective 6%
Don’t know / No opinion 32%
Net effectiveness +30% (+31%)

Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the London Assembly
Very effective 10%
Quite effective 18%
Quite ineffective 6%
Very ineffective 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 63%
Net effectiveness +20% (+17%)

Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats
Very effective 8%
Quite effective 18%
Quite ineffective 6%
Very ineffective 2%
Don’t know / No opinion 65%
Net effectiveness +18% (+17%)

Fiona Hall, Leader of the UK Lib Dem MEPs
Very effective 5%
Quite effective 15%
Quite ineffective 7%
Very ineffective 5%
Don’t know / No opinion 68%
Net effectiveness +8% (+4%)

Tavish Scott, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats
Very effective 3%
Quite effective 14%
Quite ineffective 11%
Very ineffective 4%
Don’t know / No opinion 68%
Net effectiveness +2% (+7%)


You can catch up with the results of all Lib Dem Voice’s members surveys by clicking here.

Half a defence of Paul Staines (aka @guidofawkes)

Sep.01, 2010 in Media, Politics 7 Comments

My Voice colleague Iain Roberts has already blogged about this afternoon’s big political news that William Hague’s special advisor Christopher Myers has quit his post following allegations — vehemently denied by both — that they might be having an affair.

Iain writes: “We at Lib Dem Voice wish both the Hagues and Christopher Myers well,” and I agree 100%. However, there are two further points I’d make.

The questions were fair enough…

Paul Staines blogged about the issue on 24th August, using the Freedom of Information Act to ask three questions inquiring as to the suitability of Mr Myers acting as the Foreign Secretary’s special advisor. In this he was within his rights, no matter the juvenile nudge-nudge-wink-wink (‘Just asking’) innuendo. Mr Myers was a public servant, paid by the taxpayer, and — if there were rumours circulating within Westminster that he was under-qualified and hired for the wrong reasons — it is reasonable that bloggers/journalists should pursue the story. Unlike the last-but-one Labour Prme Minister, who has today dismissed the FOI as an “imbecility”, asking questions is the proper way for such issues to be investigated.

Of course the ‘gay angle’ was played up for all it was worth, just as it was with David Laws over his expenses. That is sad, deeply sad, for the individuals involved, and for their family and friends. But that does not in itself mean that, in either case, journalists were wrong to ask the questions, even if the tenor of the reporting in both cases shimmered with latent homophobia.

…But let’s not make this about blogging

Where I partially disagree with Iain is in this statement: “This may be a good opportunity for political bloggers to reflect on where we’re falling short of those standards and how we can improve.” Yes, we should always reflect. But let’s not give more ‘kudos’ to Paul Staines than he deserves, let’s not allow him to claim another ‘scalp’. He was not even the first to run with the innuendo: that dubious honour belongs (I believe) to the Daily Mail, whose photo-led story on 21st August was clearly intended to be suggestive to those ‘in the know’. The story was picked up again by the Telegraph (23rd August), Mail again (24th August), and the Telegraph again (25th August).

Had the claims remained within the confines of Paul Staines’ blog, they would scarcely have caused a murmur. They did not. What we saw instead was a symbiotic relationship between two right-wing newspapers and a right-wing blog, egging each other on to pile on the pressure by whatever means possible. This was not a ‘political’ blogger acting in isolation, but in concert with two newspapers which are happy to ape the worst tactics of the Guido Fawkes’ smear-machine when it suits them. It is not bloggers alone who need to reflect; but any journalists willing to drop journalistic standards for the sake of a cheap story.

Tony Blair’s A Journey: 3 reasons I’m impressed without having read a single page

Sep.01, 2010 in Politics 1 Comment

No, I haven’t read Tony Blair’s A Journey yet (though it should be waiting for me at home). I haven’t even had time to read more than a handful of the preview articles, such as The Guardian’s trailer. With that confesion of near-total ignorance of A Journey established, I think there are three points worth making…

1. It’s an Event.

The decision that Mr Blair’s book would not be serialised (apparently modelled on the strategy for Alastair Campbell’s diaries) has made publication day much more of an Event-with-a-capital-E, the political anoraks’ equivalent of a release of a new Harry Potter. We have grown used to newspapers filleting the best bits (or at least the most controversial bits), so that by the time the book hits the shops we feel sated, it feels old hat. But A Journey has been lobbed like a hand grenade into today’s news media, with everyone scrabbling to cherry-pick their way through the index to spot the most explosive quote. Somehow it seems more democratic, more fun, more exciting.

2. It’s authentic.

The book – like it or loathe it – is very clearly Tony Blair’s own work: no Ghost-writer for him. As a result there are some jaw-droppingly clunking phrases, such as his, erm, interesting description of the Middle East peace process:

The biggest problem with the Middle East peace process is that no one has ever gripped it long enough or firmly enough. The gripping is intermittent, and intermittent won’t do. It doesn’t work. If it was gripped, it could be solved.

Mr Blair, meet Herr Freud.

But, ultimately, so what? True, the book seems to lack the literary elegance of Roy Jenkins’ memoirs, or the heavyweight analysis of Nigel Lawson’s — but that the book has been written personally by Mr Blair, in longhand, means it has an authenticity too many polished-to-glib-perfection autobiographies lack. Jim Pickard, in today’s FT, loftily suggests that Mr Blair’s “grating” style will kaibosh his publisher’s hopes of re-couping their £4m investment… as though Dan Brown needed to win a Nobel Prize for Literature before he could shift any copies [/irony]. Personally, I think Random House are onto a winner.

3. It’s personal.

Most importantly of all, it seems Mr Blair is willing to be as candid as it’s reasonable to expect a public figure ever openly to be. He has spilled the beans on his rows with Gordon Brown — including the frankly extraordinary revelation that the Chancellor was willing to blackmail him over pensions reform — openly critiquing both his strengths and his weaknesses. He has freely confessed his wife Cherie made mistakes in her dealings with the press. Even close confidantes like Alastair Campbell are not hagiographed. And while there has been some laddish dissing of his disclosure that he began to use alcohol as a prop (“a G&T and half a bottle of wine, what’s that? Typical southern wuss.”), his point is not unreasonable: middle-class Brits cheerfully exceed the maximum recommended intake behind closed doors, and think ourselves morally superior to the binge-drinkers sprawling around our city centres.

None of which alters my opinion of Tony Blair. As I wrote a fortnight ago, “in foreign policy, Mr Blair was an unmitigated disaster, the most incompetent post-war Prime Minister bar none”.

But part of the reason, I think, for the visceral reaction to Mr Blair’s A Journey is that he somehow ‘got away with it all’, that there was no closure on the mistakes he made. Had he been defeated at the polls, even just once, then it would have counted as some sort of comeuppance. As it was, he won three elections before disappearing into the sunset, after 10 years at the top, to make his millions.

A showman to the last, he secured a standing ovation from the House of Commons — including from sworn enemies on both sides of the chamber — for his PMQs’ swansong. Small wonder that he could compare himself without any real hubris to Diana, Princess of Wales: “We were both, in our own way, manipulators — good at grasping the feelings of others and instinctively playing on them.” There is shrewd self-perception here; and for that, if for little else, and perhaps for only one day, we can allow ourselves to be impressed by Tony Blair.

LDV survey: What party members think of Lib Dem ambitions for government

Sep.01, 2010 in Politics 1 Comment

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of a variety of key issues, and what you make of the Lib Dems’ and Government’s performance to date. Almost 600 party members have responded, and we’re currently publishing the full results of our survey.

Today we’re looking at a trio of questions relating to how the Lib Dems and the Coalition will govern in the next few years. First up, we asked:

Do you agree – yes or no – with the following statement: The Coalition is implementing a significant part of the Lib Dem manifesto.

  • 53% – Yes
  • 13% – No
  • 34% – Uncertain

A majority of Lib Dem members in our sample, then, reckon a significant part of the Lib Dem manifesto is being implemented within the Coalition agreement. Just 13% disagree with the statement. However, a for a significant minority the jury is out, with one-third saying they are uncertain.

Then we looked at the most pressing issue curently facing the Coaliton, and asked:

Do you agree – yes or no – with the following statement: I’ll be content if the Coalition gets Britain’s deficit and economy fixed (anything else is a bonus).

  • 44% – Yes
  • 34% – No
  • 23% – Uncertain

A more mixed reaction here, with a plurality agreeing that the first, top, over-riding priority for the Coalition has to be to fix the economy. However, that leaves one-third disagreeing – presumably Lib Dems who are hoping the party will be able to face the electorate again having achieved more to make a difference than simply restoring the state of the public finances. This question was modelled on one asked by ConsevativeHome in their August members’ survey – would be interesting to compare with Lib Dem members’ responses, but alas I can’t see that it’s been published.

Finally for today, we looked at an issue – social mobility – which Nick Clegg has put, alongside fixing the economy and his political reform agenda, as the key to judging whether the Lib Dems and the Coalition has made a positive impact on the lives of ordinary citizens:

Do you agree – yes or no – with the following statement: Progress on policies such as Nick Clegg’s focus on social mobility – eg, raising the income tax threshold for low earners, and the ‘pupil premium’ for pupils from poorer backgrounds – is very encouraging.

  • 68% – Yes
  • 8% – No
  • 25% – Uncertain

Given the focus on the austerity measures in the Coalition’s emergency budget – and the argument over the IFS report suggesting its effects were regressive – I was interested to see whether Lib Dem members felt the party’s progress on social mobility so far has been encouraging. Over two-thirds agree that it has been, with just 8% disagreeing. A significant minority, one-quarter of party members in our sample, are yet to be convinced by the Coalition’s progress in this area, though.

You can access all the results of past Lib Dem Voice surveys of party members here.

LDV survey: What Lib Dem members think are the biggest dangers to the party in the next 12 months

Sep.01, 2010 in Politics 2 Comments

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of a variety of key issues, and what you make of the Lib Dems’ and Government’s performance to date. Almost 600 party members have responded, and we’re currently publishing the full results of our survey.

Today we’re looking at what the Voice’s sample of party members consider to be the biggest dangers to the Lib Dems in the 12 months to come. We asked:

Which, if any, of the following factors are in your view the biggest danger to the Lib Dems in the next year? (Please tick all that apply.)

Here’s what you told us:

  • 82% – Failure to communicate how Lib Dem policies are making a big enough difference in government.
  • 59% – A hostile media which offers only a steady drip-drip of negative stories.
  • 55% – General unpopularity caused by spending cuts and tax rises.
  • 50% – Right-wing Conservative policies seen to dominate the Coalition’s agenda.
  • 49% – If next May’s AV referendum were to be lost.
  • 41% – Slow economic growth or even a double-dip recession.
  • 38% – Splits in the Lib Dem parliamentary party.
  • 32% – Losses for the party in next May’s Scottish, Welsh and local elections.
  • 31% – Tory MPs and the right-wing media extracting harsher Coalition policies on immigration, prisons and Europe.
  • 30% – A new Labour leader who ‘love-bombs’ Liberal Democrat voters.
  • 6% – Other
  • 0% – None of these.
  • 0% – Don’t know / No opinion

The breakdown is interesting. The overwhelming danger facing the party, according to more than four-in-five Lib Dem members, is the potential failure to communicate to the public what the Lib Dem achievements are within the government. In a sense, it’s an encouraging finding in that at least it’s a danger within the party’s control, and about which it can do something. That is less true of the second biggest danger facing us: the relentless negativity of the tribal right-wing and left-wing news media.

The other two threats attracting more than 50% of the vote in our survey were, unsurprisingly, related to the economy. First, the very real potential for the Coalition’s cuts agenda to hurt voters. And, secondly, the danger that the Tories are seen to dominate the Government, for example that the cuts agenda appears to be used ideologocially to shrink the state even in those areas where the Lib Dems would want government to be pro-active.

Two suprises (at least to me) of members’ responses to this question: first, that fewer than half (only just, but still) Lib Dems think that losing the AV referendum is a serious threat to the party; and, secondly, how low-risk the election of Labour’s new leader is held to be, with less than one-third thinking he (whichever Miliband brother it will be) poses a threat to the party in the next year. It says a lot about how poorly Labour has played its hand in opposition to date that so few Lib Dems regard them as a threat: the real self-perceived threat, according to party members, comes from within.

Of those who ticked ‘Other’ here are some of the extra dangers envisaged by Lib Dem members in the months to come – they’re an interesting bunch:

  • Losing our nerve
  • Party leadership and LD cabinet mebers losing their nerve
  • the general inability of the party to capitalise on success
  • failure to see that in other European countries where coalition is the norm partners do not pretend that they agree with everything but recognise that policies and actions are part of the deal. They advocate their own views
  • Coalition policy on ‘free’ schools and GPs running the health service
  • we are without the proper mentality to enjoy actually ruling
  • Cynical disregard of voters’ idealism
  • The move to a “graduate” contribution, if such a move is a perpetual requirement to pay a greater proportion of income
  • A continuing inability to grasp the professional necessities of being in power.
  • loss of our electoral identity
  • academies and SATS
  • Increased inequality as a result of Coalition activities.
  • Paying too much attention to the Liberal Democrat Party
  • Loss of members and funding due to disillusion
  • Nick Clegg failing communicate the Party’s unhapiness at Conservative inspired policies, such as free school, reform of the NHS & aggressive deficit reduction.
  • Grassroot LibDem members on the left of the party losing their nerve in large numbers
  • Loss of LD independence/voters unable to tell the difference between the two parties.
  • Loss of separate identity for the party in the eyes of the public

    • You can access all the results of past Lib Dem Voice surveys of party members here.

    Welcome to StephenTall.org.

    This website pulls together in one place The Collected Stephen Tall, a one-stop-shop for my online activity. I'm Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Director of Development for the Bodleian Libraries in the University of Oxford. This is my personal blog. I hope you enjoy browsing the site - please do let me know what you think, either by commenting, or emailing me at stephen@stephentall.org.