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.

European People's Party via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Ansbach puts Europe's bravest politician under pressure

Angela Merkel must respond to a series of tragedies and criticisms of her refugee policy. 

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, is supposed to be on holiday. Two separate attacks have put an end to that. The first, a mass shooting in Munich, was at first widely believed to be a terrorist attack, but later turned out to be the actions of a loner obsessed with US high school shootings. The second, where a man blew himself up in the town of Ansbach, caused less physical damage - three were seriously injured, but none killed. Nevertheless, this event may prove to affect even more people's lives. Because that man had come to Germany claiming to be a Syrian refugee. 

The attack came hours after a Syrian refugee murdered a pregnant Polish woman, a co-woker in a snack bar, in Reutlingen. All eyes will now be on Merkel who, more than any other European politician, is held responsible for Syrian refugees in Europe.

In 2015, when other European states were erecting barriers to keep out the million migrants and refugees marching north, Merkel kept Germany's borders open. The country has resettled 41,899 Syrians since 2013, according to the UNHCR, of which 20,067 came on humanitarian grounds and 21,832 through private sponsorship. That is twice as much as the UK has pledged to resettle by 2020. The actual number of Syrians in Germany is far higher - 90 per cent of the 102,400 Syrians applying for EU asylum in the first quarter of 2016 were registered there. 

Merkel is the bravest of Europe's politicians. Contrary to some assertions on the right, she did not invent the refugee crisis. Five years of brutal war in Syria did that. Merkel was simply the first of the continent's most prominent leaders to stop ignoring it. If Germany had not absorbed so many refugees, they would still be in central Europe and the Balkans, and we would be seeing even more pictures of starved children in informal camps than we do today. 

Equally, the problems facing Merkel now are not hers alone. These are the problems facing all of Europe's major states, whether or not they recognise them. 

Take the failed Syrian asylum seeker of Ansbach (his application was rejected but he could not be deported back to a warzone). In Germany, his application could at least be considered, and rejected. Europe as a whole has not invested in the processing centres required to determine who is a Syrian civilian, who might be a Syrian combatant and who is simply taking advantage of the black market in Syrian passports to masquerade as a refugee. 

Secondly, there is the subject of trauma. The Munich shooter appears to have had no links to Islamic State or Syria, but his act underlines the fact you do not need a grand political narrative to inflict hurt on others. Syrians who have experienced unspeakable violence either in their homeland or en route to Europe are left psychologically damaged. That is not to suggest they will turn to violence. But it is still safer to offer such people therapy than leave them to drift around Europe, unmonitored and unsupported, as other countries seem willing to do. 

Third, there is the question of lawlessness. Syrians have been blamed for everything from the Cologne attacks in January to creeping Islamist radicalisation. But apart from the fact that these reports can turn out to be overblown (two of the 58 men arrested over Cologne were Syrians), it is unclear what the alternative would be. Policies that force Syrians underground have already greatly empowered Europe's network of human traffickers and thugs.

So far, Merkel seems to be standing her ground. Her home affairs spokesman, Stephan Mayer, told the BBC that Germany had room to improve on its asylum policy, but stressed each attack was different. 

He said: "Horrible things take place in Syria. And it is the biggest humanitarian catastrophe, so it is completely wrong to blame Angela Merkel, or her refugee policies, for these incidents." Many will do, all the same.