The Lib Dems have replaced the Tories as Britain's least favourite party

New polling shows that 49% would not consider voting Lib Dem, compared to 43% who would not consider voting Conservative.

If you glanced at today's Sun you could be forgiven for thinking that UKIP had become not just Eastleigh but Britain's second party. "PM feels heat as UKIP support hits 38 per cent" reads the paper's attention-grabbing headline. But the stat turns out refer to the party's potential level of support, not its current level (12 per cent in today's YouGov poll). Asked whether they would consider voting for UKIP if it had "a realistic chance of actually winning in your local area", 38 per cent say they would, 10 per cent say they would "probably not" and 43 per cent say they would "definitely not". A separate question which asks whether people would consider voting for the party, regardless of its chances of success, found that 36 per cent would and 44 would not. 

The level of "considerers" is viewed by all parties as an important measure of their potential to expand their support, so how do the rest compare? It's Labour that comes out on top, with 46 per cent saying they would consider voting for the party and 35 per cent saying they would not. The party's large pool of potential voters is one reason why some Labour MPs (see Peter Hain's Staggers piece yesterday) are confident their party will be the largest after 2015. 

The Conservatives are in second place, with 40 per cent saying they would consider voting for the party. But worryingly for David Cameron, 43 per cent of all respondents say they would "definitely not" vote for the party. For a large section of the electorate, the Tories remain too toxic to touch. 

But it's the Lib Dems who are now Britain's least favourite party. Only 30 per cent would consider voting for them and 49 per cent would "definitely not". The finding contrasts with an earlier YouGov poll in September 2011 which found that 36 per cent would not consider voting Lib Dem, compared to 42 per cent who would not consider voting Tory. While the Lib Dems are often accused of retoxifying the Conservative brand, the poll reminds us that coalition government has been most toxic for them. 

Here are those figures in full. 


Actual support: 40%

Potential support: 46%

35% would "definitely not" vote for the party


Actual support: 31%

Potential support: 40%

43% would "definitely not" vote for the party

Liberal Democrats

Actual support: 12%

Potential support: 30%

49% would "definitely not" vote for the party


Actual support: 12%

Potential support: 36%

44% would "definitely not" vote for the party


David Cameron and Nick Clegg attend a press conference at 10 Downing Street to mark the halfway point of the coalition government on January 7, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.