As well as the Scottish polling there was also a YouGov poll of Lib Dem members yesterday, conducted following the local election results. YouGov surveyed 396 panellists who identified themselves as current Liberal Democrat party members, and 118 who had previously told us they were members of the party but had since left. Full tabs are here.

There were large majorities of party members thought that Chris Huhne and Vince Cable were performing well in office. There was similar backing for the Prime Minister, David Cameron. Liberal Democrat party members were, however, evenly split over Nick Clegg – 50% think he is doing well as Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, 50% think is is doing badly. Asked about his future, 45% think he should remain leader of the party at the next general election, while 35% think he should stand down at some point before the election

Turning to how well the Coalition Government is managing various issues there was strong support for the Government’s handling of taxation (75% thinking the government had done well) where the Liberal Democrat aim of increasing the personal allowance is being implemented. 67% also thought the Government was managing public spending well. A majority of Lib Dem party members also thought the Government was doing well on crime, Europe, overseas aid. Predictably, a large majority – 77% – thought that the Government was doing badly on student fees. Lib Dem members were almost as unhappy about the Government’s NHS policy, where 73% of party members thought the Government was doing a bad job.

Despite these misgivings, overall 79% of Lib Dem members viewed the Coalition as having been good for Britain. 88% thought it was good for the Conservative party… but 66% thought it had been bad for the Lib Dems (including 21% who thought it had been disastrous). Despite this, a large majority (91%) thought that joining the Coalition was right, and 57% thought that the right deal had been struck under the circumstances

There is hardly any support amongst Liberal Democrat members for ending the Coalition – just 7% want to pull out now, and 6% to pull out in a year or two’s time. 63% of party members want to see the Coalition last for the full five year term of the Parliament.

While these figures represent overwhelming support for the Coalition among Lib Dem members, it is worth remembering that these represent only the responses of those people who have remained in the party. Many Liberal Democrats who opposed the Coalition may have resigned or failed to renew their memberships – among those respondents we contacted who are no longer members of the party, 35% opposed the Coalition and 40% think the party should leave the Coalition within the next year or two.

Tonight’s YouGov/Sun voting intentions are CON 39%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%. While there is the normal variation from day to day, we’ve now had three YouGov polls in the last week showing the Labour lead down to 2 – it looks as though the local election may have lead to a slight narrowing of the polls.


260 Responses to “YouGov poll of Lib Dem members”

1 4 5 6
  1. @ Liberal Student

    “sadly we find our first real disagreement, as someone who works in voluntary section of law during his degree, I am all to aware of the failings of legal systems and that is biggest one. Yes if take the presumption (which big if) that those waitresses understand legal to level required, then they could attempt to sue their boss. However whether the token amount they are awarded would be worth effort is different question, especially when think, even if get amount awarded, still have to get man to pay, which can whole second court case on its own. That being said, I do not count this as class problem, because it pragmatically exists, no matter which class from. Don’t believe me, ask my Millionaire friends father who is trying to get his fraudster of ex-business partner to pay back all money he stole from their business.
    -PS we dyslexic’s get around lol”

    Are you a fellow law student? That’s great!! (Although I would warn you can get easily distracted by spending too much time blogging). I don’t profess that the legal system is perfect. If anything, it can be overlitigious with people suing for really non-existent claims and wasting the court’s time. Or sometimes people litigate just to take out their frustrations. There is a difference between actual cases and controversies and of course, a court held “airing of the greivances.”

    With that said, people usually know they can go to court when they’ve been wronged. We have a whole system of lawyers who bring suits and know the legal system and you have plenty who will work on contingency for those who can’t afford an attorney. Yes, enforcing judgments can be difficult though but those are the breaks of a case (I would imagine collecting from a sheisty restaurant manager would be easier than collecting from a multi-millionaire fraudster). Sometimes, getting your case heard and vindicated can take a long time but if you’re owed something, you’re owed something and you have a right to it. And the slow place of a court doesn’t mean that justice won’t ever be done. In a clear cut case, things can work pretty smoothly.

    I’m not dyslexic but have other academic disabilities so I sympathize. I think my sister might be slightly dyslexic (there are at least two regulars here who are dyslexic).

  2. @ Robbiealive

    “I presume the the Americans’ lack of class-consciousness — their false consciousness — is the result of the rampant nature of the ideology of economic individualism in the US. This is why people who receive poor health care object to a state-funded medical system on the grounds that “they will be paying for other people’s health care”. It does not seem to occur to them that these “other people” include their extended family & friends and eventually themselves. And why else did the US vote twice for Bush junior given that the great mass of the population had not received an increase in real incomes in years & the fact that Republican tax & fiscal policies were so obviously slanted towards the interests of the more wealthy.”

    Actually, I think there’s a realization that’s one’s socio-economic status really doesn’t matter much in life. It may matter for taxation policies, economic development policies, and other governmental priorities (just for purposes of fairness) but it doesn’t change a person’s character one way or the other. A rags to riches story can always help a politician (though it’s not a negative if one doesn’t have one) but that’s not because of the networth of the politician, that’s because of the work ethic demonstrated by the candidate.

    My socialist grandfather once had a saying for overly class-conscious people: “Don’t count other people’s money unless you’re getting paid for it.”

  3. @ Old Nat

    “I see that Murphy and Boyack are to jointly chair the Labour review. That sounds far more likely to produce a sensible conclusion than Ed M’s original suggestion of 3 MPs to conduct the review,

    Good leaders are usually lucky enough to find that their first call is the right one.”

    That’s smart of him. JM is one of my all time favorite UK politicians. I think he’s really smart and extremely underrated. Though I don’t know if that’s because he’s Scottish and the English media elites don’t take Scots seriously. Or if it’s because he has political qualities that are extremely appealing to Americans that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever to Brits. :)

    I found this U.S. blog where JM, in his capacity as the Europe Minister, was interviewed during a visit to the U.S. where American bloggers, who had no idea who he was, took a real liking to him. This attitude seems to contrast with the attitudes of UK bloggers.

  4. @DavidB

    I was going to reply to your faceous remarks on our Armed Forces but decided that your remarks were just ‘not worth the effort’.

    If I had of replied I would probably have said something like:

    ” @DavidB

    I seem to remember that the whole military budget is merely a fraction of what the UK is going to have to pay in the interest payments on our National debt each and every year. Perhaps that should be tackled first! ……..

    Of course our National Debt is actually increasing because we are spending more than we earn, so perhaps we should sort out our deficit first! …….

    But if we are too slow doing that then our national debt will continue to rise at such a rate, whereby those that lend us the money in the first place will have less confidence in our willingness and ability to pay it back. So they will probably charge a higher rate of interest and that will put us further in debt. Perhaps we should tackle that first! ……

    Never mind, lets sack a few or most of those who are actually putting their lives on the line at this very moment to carry out what Parliament expects them to do. But hang on, we may need them for national emergencies, disasters, key worker disputes, continguencies I have’t even thought about. …

    Never mind we can get the Armed Services to do…. oh dear no we can’t, because I have sacked most of them! ……

    I ‘sort of’ know that It won’t sort out the structural things that are wrong with the economy or that are financially unsupportable but, what the hell they are all a bunch of rightwingers anyway so they deserve to get sacked.

    Great planning, tremendrous forethought and deep logical thinking – NOT!

    Thanks for your loyalty and gratitude – NOT!

    You seem to have completely or conveniently forgotten that the size, equipment and composition of our Armed Forces is actually decided by its long list of committments and continguencies, as set by Parliament NOT the Armed Forces themselves. Many of that long list seems to have that unfortunate habit of occurring simultaneously and without warning.

    As for much of the rest of your remarks, it is clear you have absolutely no idea about our Armed Forces, its personnel and its roles apart from a load of ….. ‘misguided political jingoism’ (to put it politely). ”

    I’m glad I didn’t bother to say all that…….. because I don’t think you would even make the effort to read it, let alone try to understand where you were wrong.

  5. @Social Liberal

    “There is a realisation that one’s social/economic status doesnt matter much in life”.

    Er, really? :-)

    your comments to Robbie

  6. Sorry,I meant your comments to liberal student.

  7. A SOCALLIBERAL
    “Actually, I think there’s a realization that’s one’s socio-economic status really doesn’t matter much in life ”

    I don’t wish to cause offence but I have never read such nonsense in my life.

  8. @ Robbie Alive

    “I don’t wish to cause offence but I have never read such nonsense in my life.”

    I don’t wish to downplay the importance of money and all that goes with it (making money, saving money, creating ways to make money, spending money). Money is very important. You need money to live. There’s a certain enjoyment and satisfaction one gets when making money (you know, you get a check from a government issued bond and you just get that little sense of good feeling when you sign the back of the check and you go to the bank to deposit it).

    But from a philosophical standpoint, what’s the difference? Some people have an ability to make lots of money. Some people make lots of money simply by creating stuff that no one has ever thought of before. Some people make a good steady income (but not suite at Claridge’s money) simply by working hard to get a professional degree and doing good work. Some people don’t have a lot of money. Some people are beyond ambitious to make money but they are unsuccesful at making it. Some people have no ambition in life to make lots of money and don’t. Some people have no ambition in life but still have a lot of money because they inherited it. Some people are incredibly dumb and have lots of money. Some people are incredibly brilliant and live paycheck to paycheck.

    At the end of it, how does your networth, your individual income, and the size of your retirement IRA say about you as a person? Not a whole lot. It doesn’t affect one’s character, it doesn’t affect one’s potential, it doesn’t affect one’s contributions to society. People should be judged on the content of their character, not the contents of their bank accounts.

    I’m probably in the minority on this one but I know I’m not the only one who thinks this way.

  9. @ Valerie

    “Er, really?”

    My comments were directed towards Robbie. Frankly, I think Americans are starting to get a little too classist and it makes me uncomfortable and nervous. Though this decade, people seem to be getting back to normal for a change.

    I don’t get why though Labour thinks it’s a problem that David Cameron comes from a privileged background and is worth a lot of money. When a Labour MP says ‘it’s not his fault that he was brought up that way,’ it implies that there’s something wrong with being wealthy and growing up wealthy. I saw a Guardian or Telegraph article about the millionaires in the cabinet and how much they were all worth. Nancy Pelosi is worth more than anyone in the current UK Cabinet. And frankly, I’d really liked her as Speaker (I’d like her back as Speaker) and her personal net worth never really mattered much to me.

  10. is not a problem, Socialliberal, just labour knew it is an easy way to score points against him….because the Milliband brother grow up abject poverty as we all know -_-

    As for claims, well cannot say how effective yours are, but generally here, such claims by people against their boss’s is harsh mission. That being said, do not think that misdeeds by employers justifies misdeeds by employee’s, so agree with you there.

1 4 5 6