UK Election: (Liberal Democrat) Clegg Poll Lead Slashes Chances Of Tory Win

[Turborama]

Source: Sky News

A second opinion poll has put the Liberal Democrats in the lead as Nick Clegg's popularity continues to rocket after the first leaders' debate - apparently scuppering David Cameron's chances of an outright win.

A YouGov survey for the Sun puts the Liberal Democrats on 33%, the Conservatives on 32% and Labour third on 26%.

It follows a BPIX poll for the Mail on Sunday which showed the party out in front for the first time in decades.

Although the results suggest Mr Clegg is currently the most popular leader, his party is still likely to trail in third place in terms of the number of seats they win on May 6.

Read more: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Election-YouGov-Poll-Is-Second-To-Put-Nick-Cleggs-Liberal-Democrats-In-The-Lead/Article/201004315608624?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Article_Teaser_Regi_0&lid=ARTICLE_15608624_Election:_YouGov_Poll_Is_Second

---

In fact, this is the first time they have been in front during a general election in 104 years. It's ironic that the polls are coming from the Conservatives own tabloids (the Sun and the Mail).

I've posted more on this here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8172753">UK Election: For the 1st time in 104 years the Liberal Democrats are leading Labour & Conservatives

--- ---- ---

Lib Dem poll surge continues

New Statesman
Published 19 April 2010

Dramatic increase in support continues as new YouGov poll puts the Lib Dems in first place.

The dramatic increase in support for the Liberal Democrats has continued, according to a new opinion poll which puts the party ahead of Labour and the Conservatives.

The latest daily YouGov survey for the Sun put the Lib Dems up four points to 33 per cent, the Tories down one to 32 per cent and Labour down four to 26 per cent. But if repeated on a uniform swing at the election, the latest figures would leave Labour as the largest single party in a hung parliament. According to UK Polling Report's swing calculator, Gordon Brown would be 79 seats short of an overall majority.

The surge in support for the Lib Dems since Nick Clegg's performance in the first televised leaders' debate, means that the party has now overtaken Labour in the New Statesman Poll of Polls. The Conservatives remain ahead on 32 per cent, with the Lib Dems just behind on 30 per cent and Labour in third place on 28 per cent. If repeated on a uniform swing, the figures would again leave Labour as the largest party, 49 seats short of a majority

From: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/04/lib-dems-poll-labour-continues


--- ---- ---

Clegg Calls U.K. Vote System ‘Potty,’ Says Party Ties Weakening

By Scott Hamilton and Kitty Donaldson

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain’s No. 3 party that has surged into the lead in opinion polls, called the election system broken and said traditional allegiances are weakening.

The forecast failure of the Liberal Democrats’ popular support to translate into parliamentary seats is “potty,” Clegg told reporters today in Cardiff, Wales.

“There’s s fluidity in this election that we haven’t seen in a generation,” Clegg told reporters. “The old anchors, the old patterns, the old established routines that govern elections are breaking down.”

More: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-19/clegg-calls-u-k-vote-system-potty-says-party-ties-weakening.html

Full "potty" quote:

Mr Clegg said: "Self-evidently, the electoral system is potty. Any electoral system which, according to some projections I've seen, could deliver a party with the most seats which actually comes third in proportion of the votes is hardly a model of democratic fairness."

From: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hcTwz2f5GpnBqyQsKY6MVs7cN4Gw

[LeftishBrit]

1. Hope it's translated into actual seats (you can never quite tell with our electoral system...)

I do NOT want that twit Cameron to win, still less all the right-wingers who will pull his strings.

[Turborama]

2. Apparently, he's stealing the Tories' younger voters

A demographic Cameron must be aiming for seeing as the younger ones won't remember a Tory government like everyone else.

Nick Clegg factor sees Lib Dems take young vote from Tories

Monday, 19, Apr 2010 09:07

By Matthew Champion.

The Liberal Democrats have turned the voting preferences of younger voters - the demographic most likely to change their vote - on its head in the last three weeks, a poll said on Monday.

Following Nick Clegg's commanding performance in the first election debate last Thursday support for the country's third party has swelled considerably.

On Monday a YouGov poll for the Sun showed that among 18- to 34-year-olds the Lib Dems were on 41 per cent, Labour on 28 and the Tories on 26. On April 1st a similar poll for the same age group saw the Tories on top with 37 per cent, Labour on 31 per cent and the Lib Dems a distant third on 20 per cent.

The upturn in fortunes saw Mr Clegg yesterday launch a last-minute campaign urging young people to register to vote, with the deadline to do so closing at 17:00 BST tomorrow.

Continues: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/general-election-2010/nick-clegg-factor-sees-lib-dems-take-young-vote-from-tories-$1372213.htm

[h9socialist]

18. I agree with you!

David Cameron strikes me as having great potential in Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit of the Year" competition. But my question for you is: if the election lives up to the polls, can Labour put a government together??? Can Labour pass the Tories, and make it impossible for Cameron to be PM?

Finally, Brown strikes me as being noticeably Left of Blair. Is he really unpopular? Or has it just been difficult because of the economic crises? I ask because I hope Labour can move back to the Left while keeping a political majority. Can Brown still pull it out?

[LeftishBrit]

20. Good description of Dave - and his sidekick, George Osborne the Shadow Chancellor

It is hard to say what would happen, because we have an electoral system appropriate for two parties, and we have more than two parties. E.g. Thatcher got large parliamentary majorities with 42% of the vote. But, if there is a 'hung parliament' with no overall majority, then either there would be a coalition government, or a minority government depending on support from at least one of the other parties. It seems to me more likely that Labour and LibDems would be able to co-operate in such ways than Tories and LibDems; on the other hand, if the Tories *just* miss getting an overall majority, then they may be able to form a minority government.

Brown is decidedly uncharismatic, but IMO a lot of his problem *is* that he is the incumbent leader in an economic crisis. He has been a better PM than I expected: to the right of Labour leaders of the past, but significantly to the left of Blair. He has actually surprised me favourably: I had thought he'd be to Blair's left on foreign policy but indistinguishable on domestic policy; but education and health have definitely improved since he took over. It is almost as though a Labour government - very moderate Labour but still Labour - had replaced a Tory government.

I tend to think in any case that 'spare the razor-thin majority or hung parliament, and spoil the Government!' would be a good motto in this country, and hope that no one gets a huge majority. But I certainly hope that the Tories don't get in at all!

[h9socialist]

21. Very interesting observations . . .

Be thankful you have a parlimentary system. In the U.S. it's very hard to have a real diversity of political ideology -- at least in Congress. I have heard the notion that the U.S. is not a "two party system," nor even a "one party system disguised as a two party system." Rather it is a "no party system," because the Democrats and Republicans are not as ideologically consistent as major parties elsewhere (particularly in Europe). The major parties in the U.S. function more like temporary coalitions of various interest groups who go back to tearing each other up after election day. Out of 100 Senators and 435 Congressional representatives, only two are independent of the two major parties.

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama. He's tame by the standards of the European Left -- but he's head and shoulders above the sort of Presidents the US has endured since Kennedy. I am a socialist, a member of Democratic Socialists of America, and therefore a member of the Socialist International. So there's a lot of room, in my book, for Obama to improve. But he's a godsend compared to what we've been used to.

It gets me that Labour is a major member of the Socialist International, but under Tony Blair not only dropped references to "socialism," but cozied up to George W. Bush. For all its faults the U.S. Left is more consistent than that. I don't know much about the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain. Is that a successor to the Liberal Party? (I'm thinking David Lloyd George). Or is it a new thing? In the political spectrum, where do they fit, and why would they warm up to Labour quicker than to Cameron and the Tories????

Please respond, I'm fascinated by British politics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Largely a successor to the Liberals, but also with a bit of Labour input

In the early 80s, some senior Labour politicians formed the Social Democrat Party - they thought Labour was going to go too far left for them, and there were other differences (eg they were keener than most of Labour on the European Union). That party formed an alliance with the Liberals, and then they merged in the lats 80s to form the Liberal Democrats.

History of the party in detail: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=4&item=history

Where in the spectrum? A good question. Here's the Political Compass's take on it: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

very slightly to the left of current Labour, economically, and socially considerably more liberal.

[h9socialist]

23. You're making me think that Desparate Dave is not so inevitable!

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Well, it's difficult to know what prediction models are trustworthy

The current polls indicate, under the normal models, that Labour, despite getting the 3rd highest number of votes nationally, will get the most seats - but far short of a majority. They'd need Lib Dem votes in Parliament.

But all the online bookmakers are saying it's far more likely that the Tories will get the most seats. See my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8172753&mesg_id=8176534 and my follow-up to it.

Nick Clegg hasn't committed on whether he'd form a coalition with either of the other parties. All he has said is this, or a paraphrase of it:

In the days preceding the conference, the political columns had been speculating over which way Clegg would be likely to lean in the event of a hung Parliament. It is a question on which he has remained deliberately vague. His response would be shaped, he says, 'by what is the obvious direction of travel of the British people'. The party that has 'the strongest mandate should be allowed to seek to govern, either on its own or reaching out to others. But we're all going to have to be adult if that happens, and try and provide stable and responsible government.' So no deals, then? 'No deals.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7571076/General-Election-2010-Nick-Cleggs-balancing-act-as-hung-parliament-looms.html

But does 'mandate' mean 'most seats won', or 'most votes'? Labour could be the first, while the Conservatives are the second. Or this astonishing period could continue, and the Lib Dems could have more votes than either ... Most people think it unlikely he'd form a formal coalition with the Tories - too many Lib Dem members don't trust them (and the Lib Dem party members have a bit more power over policy than Tory or Labour ones do).

[h9socialist]

27. Wow! I am now totally confused!

In the US, I am an advocate for proportional representation, abolition of the United States Senate and the Electoral College. Meaning: a more representative legislature, and direct election of the President. And a lot of people here look lost when I describe this.

. . . However, your description is making me think that there's a lot of gerrymandering and complication in the land of my British ancestors.

[h9socialist]

24. Good Grief ! I'm in shock !

Obviously, embrace of socialism is no longer a pre-requisite for membership in the Socialist International. Does Labour still have any sort of effective left-wing????

I mean, here in the States, the Democratic Party still has some pretty admirable left-wingers, like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich. I hope there are kindred in Labour.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Yes, there are still some

But they've become less and less prominent over the period of Blair's reign, and then Brown's.

There's the Socialist Campaign Group, more often known as just 'Campaign'. I'm not sure how active they are as a grouping at the moment - there was some announcement of a grouping on the left of the party a few weeks ago, with I think includes McDonnell at least, but I've forgotten its name.

Ah, it's the Labour Representation Committee

[h9socialist]

28. Okay, my next question is . . .

. . . how much of a force within Labour do these groups make up? In the U.S.,
Democratic Presidential candidates can't be nominated without some center-left credentials, like universal healthcare, pro-reproductive-choice, racial and gender equality, environment, and so forth. Does Labour still have some core litnus tests? Usually the Party faithful demand attention to such core concerns. Did Blair drive those out?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Nomination is at the constituency level, done by those with paid membership of the party

and you'd really need to talk to a party member to know how it goes in practice - but as far as I can tell, it can vary a lot between constituency associations as well.

In addition, Labour has sometimes told certain constituencies to have an all-women shortlist to choose from (often unpopular at the local level) to try to increase the number of women in parliament; and when a vacancy comes up just before the election, they give the local association a shortlist, because they say it's too late to go through the initial shortlist selection process. This can be used to 'parachute in' a candidate favoured by the national leadership; and sometimes it seems they persuade sitting MPs to stay on till the last moment before they announce they're not standing again, just to be able to do this. They did this in Stoke to get Tristram Hunt, TV historian, as the candidate:

A local Labour activist will stand as an independent in the general election after a new selection row as the party attempts to get candidates into vacant constituencies.

The historian Tristram Hunt, who won the selection to become the candidate for Stoke Central on Thursday night, will face a challenge from Gary Elsby, the local party constituency secretary, who is aggrieved that Downing Street intervened to choose candidates for the shortlist.
...
Downing Street is on alert for 10 MPs to create fresh vacancies by standing down this Easter weekend – the last opportunity before the election is expected to be announced. It would take the number of Labour MPs leaving parliament past the 100 mark. MPs can technically take until 20 April to make a decision.

Downing Street is reported to have aides it would like to stand in vacant seats which include Crawley, Blackpool North and Cleveleys. Some in Downing Street appear to want serving MPs considering their futures to stay, believing last-minute vacancies could hand the seat to the opposition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/02/tristram-hunt-shortlist-labour

[bluestateguy]

3. Is it possible that Labor would have to share power with the Lib Dems?

Is that how it works there if no party wins more than 50% of the seats?

[T_i_B]

4. Yes it is possible

It's also possible that the Conservative party may have to share power with the Lib Dems.

[Joe Bacon]

11. Or there may be a minority Tory or Labour government

Just like Canada right now, The Tories have the most seats but they don't have a majority and they can be brought down at any time.An British example would be Ramsay Mac Donald's minority Labour governments in 1924 and 1929-31.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. aren't there more debates - I watched the entire first and it was great to see

looked a little 'X Factor' when it started, but the rest was pretty up front and to the political point

[T_i_B]

6. 2 more to come

The next one is on Sky News and will be more to do with foreign affairs.

[tomm2thumbs]

10. thank for the information - I was looking and wasn't able to find it

I thought they said there was a foreign affairs one - that should be even more interesting given the anti-immigration talk of the last debate. Will be interesting to hear world views from each

[iandhr]

7. I know nothing...

... about the Lib Dems and Clegg

can some one enlighten me

[T_i_B]

8. Thread from the UK forum about the Lib Dems

It's as good a starting point as any

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x29567

[Turborama]

9. Nick Clegg's rise could lock Murdoch and the media elite out of UK politics

At the Sun, we deliberately ignored the Lib Dems. The cosy pro-Cameron press may now be left floundering


David Yelland
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 23.00 BST

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.

Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.

I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)

I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.

More (well worth reading in full): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

[Odin2005]

12. Go Lib-Dems!

Question for the Brits: Do you guys still call them the Whigs? Or did that nickname die out when the Liberals became the Lib-Dems?

[T_i_B]

13. That term died out many, many moons ago

Shame really.

[mwooldri]

14. Since the Liberal Democrats are an amalgamation of the SDP and the old Liberals...

... then the term Whigs for them are long gone.

SDP - Social Democratic Party - an offshoot of Labour, of centrists who thought the then leadership under Michael Foot was taking the party way too far to the left. Their views were pretty much in line with the Liberal Party, so they joined forces for a couple of elections. Then merger plans took place... Dr. David Owen didn't care for joining the combined party so he continued with the "origial" SDP until it effectively died, some other people continued with a Liberal Party but that's now a minor issue.

Interesting to note that one of the names used for a while was the Liberal and Social Democratic Party, but that name was soon scrapped because otherwise they'd be known as the LSD Party.

For the record, yes I was a card-carrying Liberal Democrat member when I lived in the UK.

[Odin2005]

17. LSD Party? LOL!

[LeftishBrit]

15. No, it died out in the 19th century

The Whigs and Tories (which I think both started as insulting terms, but were taken over by the parties themselves!) became Liberals and Conservatives in Victorian times. The Tories, being Tories and not good at adapting to change, still call themselves that 150 years later; but no one's been called a Whig in many generations.

[Odin2005]

16. Thanks!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. "...started as insulting terms, but were taken over by the parties themselves"

Now where have I seen THAT before?

[defendandprotect]

19. That would be good news . . . and needless to say, America needs to move to left ---

[BlueStater]

29. Forgive my ignorance but I always thought UK elections were held in odd numbered years? n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

31. UK general elections can be held at any time

There must be one held at least every five years. The Prime Minister can call one before if s/he thinks that it would be advantageous for their Party. The opposition parties can also force an election if the government party can't defend a governing majority in the House of Commons through a vote of no confidence.

Previous elections were held: 2005, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1987, 1983, 1979, 1974, 1974 (note there were two elections in this year), 1970, 1966, 1964.

You'll notice that there is no set pattern unlike the set terms of the US.

[No Elephants]

33. So happy to see that headline! I hope these are real liberals.

Here's hoping for a resurgence of liberals ALL over the globe, including in the U.S.

Third way is too close to one way--the Republican way.

[myrna minx]

34. Wow! n/t