It wouldn’t do to get too excited about a single poll, but the Scotsman’s most recent YouGov, showing the Lib Dems falling to 5%, behind the Greens’ 6% on the list, is certainly a first. The Scotsman’s seat projections also show them behind, with just 5 seats.
Isn’t it inconceivable they could fall that low? It’s way below the predictions being made by my esteemed colleagues. After all, the Highlands and Islands returned four Lib Dem MSPs alone last time, including the ultra-safe pair of Northern Isles seats. Edinburgh West, as was, they held by 17% over the SNP – but the Westminster seat they won by just 8% last year. Could North-east Fife go blue again? And on the lists, missing out in Glasgow, Central, and West seems plausible, but beyond that?
Parties, especially old parties like the Liberals, often seem immutable, a fixture. But all things must pass, sooner or later, and there is one particularly eye-catching example – the Aussie Democrats. A green-tinged centrist party, they regularly held the balance of power (“kept the bastards honest”, in the parlance). In 1998 they went into the election campaign against GST, a regressive sales tax akin to VAT, before going in with the right to deliver it. Sound familiar?
Thereafter the decline became terminal, and in 2009, their last elected representative went independent, probably closer to the whimper end for the death of a political party. It hasn’t happened in isolation, of course. At the same time the Australian Greens have grown from strength to strength, and last year not only got their first AV seat in the lower house but won a Senate seat in every state.
So could it happen here? Let’s not be premature, but parties need a base, and they need to be seen to stand for something. The Lib Dems have knocked some of their base out – the anti-war, anti-fees, anti-politics, lower case green and leftish elements. As per Jeff’s recent post, I defy anyone to identify anything they stand for, given the extraordinarily inept deal they struck with the Tories, handing over their red line issues and letting Cameron keep all his.
The strongest peg remaining would appear to be the old rural Liberal vote. Some advice for Tavish: don’t do anything to annoy them.
#1 by Colin on March 30, 2011 - 9:49 am
I know how good you guys are with election figures and the like, but I was wondering if any of you had seen this report in Newsnet Scotland:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/speakers-corner/1933-wiil-the-fate-of-libdem-vote-hold-the-key-to-the-scottish-elections.html
It touches on the same subject of the lib dem decline and the possible outcome of that decline in ten of their seats. It makes interesting reading, but I’m still to be convinced that the result will produce swings that great – but anything is possible I suppose when their party is polling as they are.
#2 by Jeff on March 30, 2011 - 10:04 am
Thanks Colin, sounds intriguing. I’ll certainly check it out, do it now actually.
It’s easy to think of the Lib Dem collapse as where they will lose seats but a collapsing vote in Labour/SNP seats is bound
to have a significant impact too.
#3 by John Erskine on March 30, 2011 - 10:03 am
Couldn’t agree with you more James.
I live in the Highlands and campaign for the Labour party locally. The response from voters on the door towards the Liberals is becoming increasingly negative.
They rely on plastering Charles Kennedy’s face over any campaign material and the only other recognisable Liberal figure north of Inverness (excluding the Islands) was John Farquhar Munro who is not contesting this election. I think they could potentially lose a percentage of the vote share from the Highland region.
The strongest Liberal vote is still, as you correctly identified, from the older rural population. Many still fail to identify the Liberals propping up the Torys south of the border and creating cuts that affect the area such as the closure of R.A.F Lossiemouth.
#4 by CassiusClaymore on March 30, 2011 - 10:14 am
The central point, I suppose, is – why vote LibDem? They’re clearly quite happy to dump their principles as required, so they’re not the party for the conscientious objector any more. I reckon a lot of those types will vote Green and that seems to be reflected in the polling.
Everyone has a view on the ConDem coalition at Westminster – to my mind, if you’re pro-union and you approve of the ConDems then you vote Tory. If you’re pro-union and you don’t, you vote Labour.
If you’re a nationalist, even a centre right one like me who disagrees with most of their policies, then you vote SNP.
Again – why vote LibDem, other that out of inertia or misplaced loyalty?
Oblivion beckons.
CC
Pingback: STV Lost Leaders Debate |
#5 by Douglas McLellan on March 30, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Oooh. Another future of the Lib Dem post. At least it was better put than Jeffs recent effort.
Anyway. Yes, the polls are problematic and the Lib Dems will end up with fewer MSPs than last time, particularly in the lists. I happen to think that the constituency seats will remain strong and there is the possibility of one surprise at the election, according to some private polling I have been told about. But yes, fewer MSPs than 2007.
But will the Greens gain any seats? To be honest I am not convinced. In Edinburgh, Robin has a large personal vote which may not transfer (vote for Margo instead?) and in Glasgow if the left coalesces around Galloway then Patrick might find it hard to get back on the list.
And the question of where Lib Dem votes go is interesting because I am not convinced that a 2nd-vote green campaign will be able to attract that many second votes from Lib Dem voters (as opposed to the smaller about of people who would say they were actually Lib Dems). Only those who were truly Lib Dem and hate the coalition will probably see the Greens as a suitable place to take their vote. And even then there will be a reasonable Others, especially those who were, since circa 2001, anti-Labour will probably return to that fold although some will respect what the SNP have done in power and will vote for them. With both those parties squeezing second votes as well the room for maneuver for the Greens is limited.
You are correct that the Lib Dems need to tighten their message. Or even present one that is different. I would say that going for Calman and being opposed to an independence referendum were mistakes and that we need back Lord Steels report into fiscal federalism to give us a distinct tax message. We need to back a referendum (but saying no obviously) as our preference for giving people more choices took an epic credibility knock when we didnt back the referendum. We need to offer a clearer Green message that doesnt get bogged down in local disputes (every community wants green power but none wants a green method of energy production near them or transmitted to them.) We can be very pro-Scotland, almost federalist, without being pro-independence. That can separate us from Labour and the Tories. We do need to show a difference between the Tories and the Lib Dems as CC’s point is gaining traction. I am a rightward facing Lib Dem economically but very liberal when it comes to social reform and private lives and freedom of choice. We need to articulate that social positioning more.
As for what we stand for in Government with the Tories:
I stand for lower taxes, especially for the lowest paid. The Lib Dem manifesto stated that and it is being delivered.
I stand for increased civil liberties. ID cards have been scrapped.
I stand for efficient government and reduced waste. Gov IT contracts are now very closely monitored and procurement rules have been rewritten.
I am pro-more power to devolved governments. Wales now has more power following referendum.
I could go on but you get the point. There is plenty that was in the Lib Dem Manifesto that is now being delivered by the Lib Dems in Government. I am proud of that fact. I have never agreed with the idea of free tuition but I understand that is a manifesto commitment that has been broken in a fairly comprehensive manner which every Lib Dem will have try an account for.
The history of the Democrats in Australia was interesting and points to a possible future of the Lib Dems. I would say that their historical tradition is not as long as the tradition of the Liberals in the UK was though. There are always stories of the rise and decline of political parties. After all, the Greens in Italy have lost more and more share of the vote the more and more they have moved to the left.
#6 by Indy on March 30, 2011 - 2:31 pm
I see the Lib Dems have not been able to field a candidate in every constituency. That, as much as the polls, tells me they are in deep doo doo.
#7 by Malc on March 30, 2011 - 2:44 pm
As I understand it, it was more to do with an administrative cock-up on the part of the local party than an inability to find a candidate. Apparently there was a candidate in place, the papers were lodged but there was an issue with them and the deadline came to pass without them fixing it.
You can question what that says about their organisation if you like – I wouldn’t dream of saying such a thing…
Interestingly, that’s 3,000 LD voters in Clydesdale who will have to find another home – with Labour’s notional majority just over 1,000. It might not appeal to them to vote for the SNP – but if the SNP take this constituency, and the likely constituency gain for Christine Grahame – the Lib Dems might get a bonus return on the list. I haven’t run the figures yet… but it seems plausible that this could be a decent strategy for them, especially since they don’t have one of their own to vote for…
#8 by Douglas McLellan on March 30, 2011 - 2:49 pm
If you are referring to Clydesdale then there was an actual candidate (I think we have even spent money on leaflets) but the paperwork was dealt with in a spectacularly inefficient manner so the candidate cant stand.
#9 by Alec Macph on March 30, 2011 - 3:05 pm
Douglas, I’ve heard Almond Valley mentioned as well, but see a candidate there. And a NF candidate!!! Bloody hell!
James, maybe those 5% all live here in the North.
It’s not just Labour voters who detest the LibDems, old chap.
~alec
#10 by DougtheDug on March 30, 2011 - 6:25 pm
James: Are you talking about the Lib-Dems or just the Scottish region of the Lib-Dems because it’s not entirely clear from the article.
If it’s just the Scottish region of the Lib-Dems you’re talking about then the Australian analogy doesn’t hold because all a crash in Scotland means for the Lib-Dems is a regional failure not a countrywide electoral failure which would result in the party disappearing completely.
Even if the results go badly for the Lib-Dems in Scotland the Lib-Dems can always rebuild Scotland from the rest of the party in England and Wales at the next election.
#11 by James on March 30, 2011 - 7:09 pm
Doug, that’s a very good question. I think if they do fade away it’ll be patchy. Today’s poll suggests a retreat from being a pan-Scottish party to a regional one, and the question is if those regions are strong enough to allow re-colonisation.
#12 by Charles on March 30, 2011 - 6:25 pm
A very interesting yougov poll with lots of data. It is a shame though that they can’t look at a cohort to see where the SNP advance has come from.
Some insights:
It looks as if SNP are mopping up other parties to bolster their constituency vote (24%) seems to be from other parties including SSP (8), Labour?? (7) and Green (5) voters. In contrast to Labour with 8%. Was this the same in 2007?
Lowest ‘don’t know’ figure I’ve seen in a while (11%).
Of the Lib Dems left, they seem to be narrowly in favour of labour, and if they are forced are more enamoured with Iain Gray than Alex Salmond (38 vs 32). Although a snap shot- my guess is that quite a large proportion of the LD defectors have gone to the SNP. If Eck can keep em this could determine the outcome on May 5th.
A strange result: the SNP seem to have many more CDE voters than usual. Labour are evenly distributed across socioeconomic status – a first I think – and is maybe due to my first observation.
#13 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on March 30, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Stupid Boy
‘I defy anyone to identify anything they stand for’
They stand for election thats all
The British people will have there revenge on the Lib Dem duplicity and nothing is going to stop them
#14 by Top Tory Aide on March 30, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Take it the five Lib Dems would likely be Tavish, Liam McArthur, Mike Rumbles, Margaret Smith and Willie Rennie?
#15 by Indy on March 31, 2011 - 9:32 am
Mr M may be getting the election mixed up with “Gladiator”.
#16 by Welshguy on March 31, 2011 - 9:37 am
#5 Douglas
The Welsh Assembly powers referendum was the result of the coalition deal betweedn Plaid Cymru and Labour in Cardiff (the former wanted it, the latter didn’t, then changed their minds when they saw how popular it was). The Welsh Lib Dems campaigned in favour, but most of their supporters apparently voted against (though less so than the Tories); regardless, it has nothing to do with Westminster governments past or present; it cannot and should not be claimed as a victory for the Lib Dems in coalition.
#17 by Douglas McLellan on March 31, 2011 - 6:17 pm
I’ll meet you half way. Technically, as I understand it, although Wales asked for the power, Westminster could have said no.
But I shall change my example and point to the new Scotland Bill on the Calman proposals. Personally speaking they dont got far enough but It is more progress that Labour were giving and the Tories do not have a track record of supporting and extending Scottish devolution. I still think devolution is better for the Lib Dems in Government.
#18 by Malc on April 1, 2011 - 8:25 am
Westminister could have said no to Wales its true. But after the Sec of State for Wales said yes, it was hardly likely that the Commons or the Lords were going to overrule.
#19 by CW on April 1, 2011 - 12:34 am
NE Fife going blue? Unless the SNP/Lab/LD vote splits almost evenly or the tories somehow gain votes from LD defectors then I would rule it out completely. The tory vote in Scotland cannot, IMO increase significantly from last time in any constituency, so if NE Fife were to be gained by any party it would most likely be the SNP. LD voters in the constituency are not conservative leaning by any means – if they were, the tories would never have lost the seat or would’ve regained it at some point in time.
#20 by Malc on April 1, 2011 - 8:37 am
… plus there’s the small matter of trying to overturn a notional majority of 4,500 there. Still, the Tories are in second, and probably best placed to challenge.
#21 by CW on April 1, 2011 - 12:37 am
But I have to agree with the general thrust of your post. The old rural liberal vote is still alive in some constituencies but they really are going to struggle to find enough of them to win many FPTP seats outside of Shetland or Orkney!
#22 by Welshguy on April 1, 2011 - 8:46 am
That Westminster didn’t say no isn’t really that much of a big deal: a Labour government would have permitted it, and so would a Tory majority, so the presence of the Liberals was moot. As @Malc points out there would be something of an uproar if a (reasonable) demand from a devolved parliament was turned down by Westminster without a very good reason – especially after the Welsh Conservatives and Liberals agreed to campaign for a yes, and opinion showed the Yes campaign would likely win heavily (as they did). I expect even independence will be granted by whatever government is in Westminster, unless it can clearly be shown that it’s not what the people want (in which case it’s unlikely to be proposed in the first place).
Don’t get me wrong; obviously having the Lib Dems in Westminster is better for devolution than having the Tories alone, simply because the Tories aren’t as pro-devolution as the Lib Dems are. But I think the future of devolution is out of English hands now.