It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people…. still, at least it should save them some money when it comes to booking venues for future party conferences; village halls shouldn’t cost much

There’s way to go yet. In June 1990, the Lib Dems were polling 5%. In the election two years later they still managed 18%…

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/1990_june_guardian_june_poll.pdf

Oh, and it’s not a vote they’ve fallen to, it’s an opinion poll rating taken more than four years before the likely date of the next election. Interesting and amusing, but not all that useful.

Wrong. The LDs have NOT hit a record low.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2932

@3

Ah.. not to worry, I’m sure at the current rate you’ll be plumbing those single figure depths in no time George!

Lie Dems in meltdown and their supporters are clueless.

Bit like their leader.

Its irrelevant anyway. Lib dems derrive strength and influence through hung parliaments not poll results. Consider these results (in terms of seats won):

Scenario 1: Lab 40%, Con 40% Lib Dem 20%

Scenario 2: Lab 45% Con 45% Lib Dem 10%

In each of these scenarios the lib dems can get stuff through by forming a coalition. Now consider this scenario:

Lab 54% Con 23% Lib Dem 23%

In this scenario the lib dems can’t do anything because Lab has a majority.

So the lesson here is Lib dems can’t get policies through as a result of winning seats (apart from the unlikely scenario of winning outright). But they can by being a partner with others. So they achieve more by being the partner for 5 years – even if it costs them half their seats and takes them 20 years to recover – than they can through 25 years of slow growth in opposition in a system designed to keep small parties small.

@4 I refer you to @2

@ 7

Keep telling yourself things can only get better….. it might even come true; meanwhile in the real world, come back and tell us how bright things look after the O&S bye-election, the local and Celtic elections, and the AV vote.

@TimJ

There’s way to go yet. In June 1990, the Lib Dems were polling 5%. In the election two years later they still managed 18%…

There’s a major fly in the ointment of this line of thinking.

The Lib Dems are now in government.

So the impact of an election being called and this third party no one ever hears anything about suddenly getting loads of airtime is going to be much, much weaker.

“it’s not a vote they’ve fallen to, it’s an opinion poll rating taken more than four years before the likely date of the next election.”

I admire your ambition, but trying to explain democracy to the comrades is a waste of time.

Just look at their leadership ‘election’.

“So the impact of an election being called and this third party no one ever hears anything about suddenly getting loads of airtime is going to be much, much weaker.”

Smaller isn’t the same as weaker.

See #6

@ Planeshift

“So the lesson here is Lib dems can’t get policies through as a result of winning seats (apart from the unlikely scenario of winning outright). But they can by being a partner with others. So they achieve more by being the partner for 5 years – even if it costs them half their seats and takes them 20 years to recover – than they can through 25 years of slow growth in opposition in a system designed to keep small parties small.”

Very interesting point. Although if they’d done better in the last election they might have been able to deal with Labour rather than the Tories, which would probably have been less damaging for their reputation (especially if they’d managed to get rid of Brown in the process).

Galen @ 1.

Nice one – and not so wide of the mark methinks – but Village Halls as LD conference venues? Bit optimistically wasteful don’t you think? – a telephone kiosk should be adequate by the time those VAT Quislings present themselves for re-election.