Okay, so here come some polls

by Stephen Tall on October 7, 2007

I do love it when Iain Pravdale gets his knickers in a twist about the failure of Lib Dem Voice to turn itself into the kind of insta-pundit knee-jerk blog he relishes. This time it’s because we haven’t obsessed about the latest AnyansweryouwantGov poll showing the party at 12%.

For the record, LDV has no policy about whether or not it covers individual opinion polls. I guess we’re more likely to highlight one that’s good for the party than the contrary – we’re only human – but to be honest I think there are more interesting and important things to blog about in politics. And anyway Alex Wilcock sometimes pops up here to put the full range of polls in some perspective.

It’s not that I don’t read the polls. Of course I do, along with every other political nerd. I just happen to think they too often become an unhelpfully useless distraction in political debate. Had the Tories paid a little less attention to those hypothetical polls suggesting Labour’s popularity would plummet with Gordon Brown’s succession, they might have been a little bit better prepared for his honeymoon.

Besides, the polls love to predict the demise of the Lib Dems. In 1997, the polls said we were going to be buried by Tony Blair’s landslide. In 2001, the polls said Charles Kennedy would lose his still rock-solid seat. Admittedly, our chances were talked up in 2005, but there was then an exceptional once-in-a-generation issue dividing the Lib Dems from the two larger parties.

Had an election been called this week for 1st/8th November, here’s how the five most recent polls were reporting the standing of the Lib Dems compared with the equivalent stage at the last three elections:

1997: 11% (Gallup), 14% (Mori), 10% (Harris), 18% (ICM), 11% (Mori).
Average according to polls: 13%. Actual result in general election: 17% (+4% during campaign).

2001: 13% (Mori), 13% (NOP/Powerhouse), 11% (NOP/Powerhouse), 13% (NOP), 13% (Gallup).
Average according to polls: 13%. Actual result in general election: 19% (+6% during campaign).

17% (Communicate), 16% (Communicate), 21% (ICM), 19% (NOP), 19% (Populus).
Average according to polls: 18%. Actual result in general election: 23% (+5% during campaign).

2007: 16% (Ipsos-Mori), 13% (YouGov), 16% (ICM), 15% (Populus), 11% (YouGov).
Average according to polls: 14%.

So there you have it. The Lib Dems would have been doing worse than at the same stage in 2005; a little better than in either 1997 or 2001. I think, therefore, we can be forgiven for taking the hysteria of some bloggers – suggesting some kind of Lib Dem wipe-out – with as much of a pinch of salt as their self-belief they were destined to become the MP for Norfolk North.

Is this polling performance one the Lib Dems should be delightedly ecstatic with? Of course not. We can, should and must do better. All of which is to state the bleedin’ obvious.

But do I regard the current Lib Dem performance as so remarkably poor that it is worthy of comment each and every time YouGov decides to give us a poor mark? Frankly, no. Nor would any serious political commentator, either.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:


Very, very well said indeed.

by Nich Starling- Norfolk Blogger on October 7, 2007 at 11:00 pm. Reply #

Are you having a laugh? The Lib Dem conference didn’t manage to take the party forward in the eyes of the public or the media. Your leader has clearly not got what it takes to make an impact, so why do you persist with him? Saying that you’ve been just as rubbish in the past is not exactly going to inspire anyone.


by Letters From A Tory on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 am. Reply #

11%, not 12%. You and I both know you’re stuffed if things continue the way they are. Every LibDem I talk to about this admits it privately.

by Iain Dale on October 8, 2007 at 9:29 am. Reply #

Great analysis Stephen. The problem with Dale and his kind is that they get too caught up in the Westminster bubble and end up believing their own spin.

by Ian Turgoose on October 8, 2007 at 10:05 am. Reply #

Iain clearly hasn’t spoken to every LibDem – I can vouch for the fact he hasn’t spoken to me.

He and I both know that.

I also seriously doubt he engaged in enough meaningful discussions with LibDems on the doorstep canvassing in preparation for any election to have an accurate data-set.

by James S on October 8, 2007 at 5:34 pm. Reply #

Stop going on about Ian Dale, don’t turn this blog into some sort of cyber battle.

by Jonathan on October 8, 2007 at 7:11 pm. Reply #

There are 10,606 reasons why no-one should listen to Iain Dale.

by Martin Land on October 8, 2007 at 7:14 pm. Reply #

That’ll be the Iain Dale famed for the accuracy of his electoral predictions, then? 🙄

by Dominic on October 8, 2007 at 8:27 pm. Reply #

It’s the Iain Dale who told me he was going to win North Norfolk at the last election! I told him he would do well if he kept the LD majority down to under 5000. (Hello there Iain!)

My view for what it’s worth is that if an election had been called we would have done quite well in held and some target seats and poorly in most other seats.

But anyway there isn’t going to be an election so who cares? Meanwhile in a month’s time the opinion polls will all be differnet again and all the idiots will still treat them like gold dust.

by Tony Greaves on October 8, 2007 at 8:37 pm. Reply #

You can’t say you were not warned!!

by Kevin Davis on October 9, 2007 at 1:10 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.