Are we witnessing a Lib Dem revival?

New ICM poll puts the party on 18 per cent, their highest rating since September.

A

Latest poll (ICM/Guardian): Labour majority of 20 seats (uniform swing)

It's just one poll, but the latest monthly ICM/Guardian survey will cheer the Lib Dems up this morning. It puts Nick Clegg's party up 3 points to 18 per cent, their highest rating in any survey since September.

ICM has persistently shown higher Liberal Democrat ratings than other pollsters, although it's notable that the Lib Dems' share of the vote has also increased in recent YouGov surveys.

At one point it looked as if Chris Huhne's prediction that support for his party would fall to 5 per cent would come true (a YouGov poll published on 7 January put the Lib Dems on just 7 per cent) but six of the last eight YouGov polls have put them on 10 per cent and today's has them on 11 per cent.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

A

Labour majority of 76 (uniform swing)

To be sure, this remains a disastrously low poll rating: a drop of 14 points since the election and of 24 points since "Cleggmania". But it's still worth asking the question: is the worst over for the Lib Dems? Some of the anger over tuition fees has dissipated and, as payments are made retrospectively, the party won't necessarily suffer when fees of £9,000 arrive in 2012.

It's also possible that some Lib Dems have returned to the fold as the anti-cuts backlash has begun to reduce Conservative support. As I noted last week, the Tories' "human shields" are no longer protecting them from public discontent.

It remains safe to assume that the Lib Dems will lose both votes and seats at the next election: the fees bill was Clegg's Iraq moment, a profound breach of trust for which the party will pay dearly. But for the first time in months, Lib Dem supporters have some grounds for optimism.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.