A look back at the polls: August '09

by Stephen Tall on September 1, 2009

We tend not to be too poll-obsessed here at LDV – of course we look at them, as do all other politico-geeks, but viewed in isolation no one poll will tell you very much beyond what you want to read into it. Looked at over a reasonable time-span and, if there are enough polls, you can see some trends.

Here, in chronological order, are the results of the six polls published in August:

Tories 43%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 19% – ICM/S. Mirror (16th August 2009)
Tories 42%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 18% – YouGov/S. Times (16th August)
Tories 41%, Labour 24%, Lib Dems 18% – ComRes/S. Ind. (23rd August)
Tories 41%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 19% – ICM/Guardian (25th August)
Tories 43%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 17% – Mori (unpublished, 30th August)
Tories 42%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 18% – YouGov/Telegraph (31st August)

Which gives us an average rating for the parties in August as follows (compared with July’s averages):

Tories 42% (+2%), Labour 26% (+1%), Lib Dems 18% (-1%)

August polling tends to be light for a very obvious reason: so many people are away it’s difficult to get a reliable data-set. What’s most notable about this month’s polls is the extent to which the different polling companies’ figures agree; often we will find at least one ‘outlier’, perhaps with ICM being most generous to the Lib Dems and YouGov most miserly. But this month, all published polls place the Tories in the range 41-43%, Labour at 24-28% and the Lib Dems between 17-19%. Perhaps this isn’t so very surprising in a month when political news has been pretty thin.

The increases in Labour and Tory support are probably best ascribed to a continuing ‘unwind’ in support for other parties which spiked in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandals. In fact, neither party has recovered the levels of support they recorded in April, immediately prior to the Telegraph’s revelations – back then, the Tories were on 43%, Labour 28%, with the Lib Dems on 18%.

What of the Lib Dems’ 18% – should we be pleased, or disappointed? Probably both. Historically, it’s not such a bad rating. Let’s have a look at the party’s August average poll ratings in the year before a general election:

Aug 1991: 15% (GE ’92: 18%)
Aug 1996: 14% (GE ’97: 17%)
Aug 2000: 14% (GE ’01: 19%)
Aug 2004: 22% (GE ’05: 23%)

The glass-half-empty news is clear: we are 4% down on our equivalent rating in 2004. Combine that with the fact that the Tories are almost certain to poll significantly better in 2010 than they did in 2005, and that the Tories are the main challengers in a number of marginal Lib Dems seats, and you can see the party’s problem.

However, the glass-half-full news is also clear: the party has gained support between August and the subsequent general election every time. Indeed, it’s noticeable that the biggest jump – of 5% from August 2000 to June 2001 – coincided with Charles Kennedy’s first general election as leader. We shall see if Nick Clegg might also gain the party a similar popularity premium when he is exposed to the public during the white heat of a campaign. The evidence so far (as covered in last month’s poll round-up) is that Nick’s personal ratings are positive and on the up (and, indeed, ahead of David Cameron’s).

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

No comments

one interesting point is that the unwinding of the others has slowed drastically, my guess is that they will stabilise at 13 or 14%. could they be a pool of soft votes for the LDs to catch ?

by plumbus on September 1, 2009 at 9:11 pm. Reply #

[…] Lib Dem Voice looks back at August’s political polls […]

by Green's Diary » Blog Archive » Green’s 5 A Day – Tuesday on September 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm. Reply #

Although not appalling for the Lib Dems we should be doing MUCH better at this point:

1) Failure to carry on the pressure on the two larger parties. Why isn’t Nick doing something newsworthy during the summer holidays to make people sit up and notice how corrupt they still are. Chain himself to railings, go on hunger strike.. I don’t know…something!
2) Targeting the big issues like education, health etc that have been in the news, rather than less significant ones like forces pay.
3) Focusing some scorn and anger on Cameron and his idiotic pronouncements like the health service should be run like Tesco. Or Tory council saying public services should be run like Ryanair.

Until or unless he starts making some noise and making it clear the Lib Dems exist and are different from the main parties, then this clear run straight into a disastrous Tory takeover is set to continue.

by Robert C on September 6, 2009 at 10:49 am. Reply #

Why are the Liberal Democrats not doing MUCH BETTER? Because we can no longer trust them! Personally I cannot understand how so many people (17/18%) say they are going to vote for them. They promised a referendum on the Constitution of Europe, then pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was not effectively the same, so did not need a referendum, then thought that instead they could slither off the hook by calling for a referendum on ‘in or out’ instead of on the Lisbon Treaty. The party nationally has been dishonest and slippery and is potentially treasonable. They would turn our country into a collection of regions in a country called Europe. They would have taken us into the Euro, which would have been a disaster in the present recession. No one who cares for our great country should vote for the EU-faithful LIberal Democrats at the next General Election, however hard working and helpful their local government councilors may be. Let us hope their national poll share slithers down and down from here into insignificance, unless by some miracle they start to see sense on leaving full membership of the EU, the CAP – taxing the poor to pay the rich – and the CFP.

by Dane Clouston on September 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm. Reply #

Who the hell votes in these polls? I do not know anyone, nor have known anyone who has ever been so important as to be asked to vote.

by Victoria on September 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.