I decided to quickly do a little bit of investigation into the likelihood of Annabel Goldie winning her First Past the Post seat, with more than a hint of a hope that the Scottish Conservative leader could pull it off. However, I came away with the conclusion that there is a greater chance that Annabel will miss out on being re-elected to the Scottish Parliament entirely.
For a start, the boundary changes have not been kind. The 2007 Renfrewshire North result was:
Labour (Trish Godman) – 10,467
Conservative (Annabel Goldie) – 8,289
SNP (Bill Wilson) – 8,167
The 2011 notional result (after boundary changes) for Renfrewshire North and West, including candidates, is:
Labour (Stuart Clark) – 11,341
SNP (Derek Mackay) – 8,236
Conservative (Annabel Goldie) – 6,420
A competitive second place has been replaced with a distant third and I have little doubt that Derek Mackay will make it known to every last constituent that he is the main challenger, according to the numbers at least.
So a FPTP victory for the Tory leader seems a remote prospect but surely Annabel will be safely returned via the seven regional seats for West of Scotland?
Well, probably, but it is by no means certain and that is in no small part thanks to Jackson Carlaw’s expected victory in Eastwood.
The breakdown of votes in the West in 2007 was as follows:
Labour – 91,725
SNP – 75,953
Conservative – 40,637
Lib Dems – 22,515
Greens – 8,152
The elected MSPs, in order of selection, had party affiliation of:
1 – SNP
2 – SNP
3 – Lib Dem
4 – Conservative
5 – SNP
6 – SNP
7 – Conservative
Now, there is an element of calculated guesstimation at play here of course but let’s assume that Labour will retake Cunninghame North in May and the breakdown of regional votes will be as follows:
SNP – 83,953
Labour – 81,725
Conservative – 32,637
Lib Dems – 16,515
Greens – 16,404
(Assumptions:
(1) Some would-be Labour voters will realise that their second vote is wasted on Labour and vote elsewhere, Greens being prime beneficiaries.
(2) Lib Dems will see votes haemorrhage to SNP and Greens
(3) Conservatives will see a small but significant dip)
The above result would give regional seats of:
1 – SNP
2 – SNP
3 – SNP
4 – SNP
5 – SNP
6 – Lib Dems
7 – Greens
So, no Conservative regional MSP and, crucially, no Annabel Goldie. And I don’t even think I’m bullsh*tting (too much).
Indeed, the whole region seems to boil down to this:
Cunninghame North is a head-to head between SNP and Labour
West of Scotland is a head-to-head between Greens and Tories
#1 by Nick on January 11, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Nice idea. Not sure I can see the Greens and Lib Dems BOTH beating the Tories. But if Labour (being recipient of some of the lost Tory/LD votes) was to take one of those two seats then it might be possible.
Even if she doesn’t lose her seat, she WILL lose her role as party leader.
#2 by Jeff on January 11, 2011 - 6:26 pm
It’s not a case of the Greens and Lib Dems beating the Tories but rather getting over a half of the Tory votes. Remember Jackson Carlaw is favourite to win Eastwood so that would have a direct impact on the d’Hondt formula in the regional rounds. I don’t actually think it will happen but if enough Lib Dem/Labour votes fall to the Greens or the SNP has a real bumper day in the West, then it’s possible.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on January 11, 2011 - 5:29 pm
It may just be me but I cant see many Lib Dem votes going to the SNP. Some will vote Green as the seek another anti-establishment haven. Years in Government mean that the SNP are not an anti-establishment party.
Some will also vote Labour as they were using their Lib Dem vote as a protest against whatever Labour were doing wrong at the time but would (as happened in May 2010) vote Labour anyway when feeling directly threatened.
Also, the way Labour campaign and the way that the country will be feeling in May (if the doom merchants are to be believed) could mean that many more second preference votes could go to Labour than you are assuming.
#4 by Jeff on January 11, 2011 - 6:33 pm
Fair points Douglas, particularly the LD to Labour shift. I guess voters don’t follow the detail as much as we do but I’m
still surprised that so many people waste their second votes on Labour in Glasgow and the West when there patently won’t be a regional Labour MSP in that area. I even wonder if Labour will openly direct their supporters to vote elsewhere to boost their chances of being the largest party.
So my numbers in the post, perhaps mistakenly, assume that a good slice of would-be Labour voters will vote elsewhere.
#5 by Caron on January 11, 2011 - 5:41 pm
Are you not wildly overestimating the SNP vote?
#6 by John Ruddy on January 11, 2011 - 6:40 pm
I agree with Caron, I think that expecting the SNP vote to go up by that much is asking a bit much, given the current state of the opinion polls.
Now opinion could (and probably will) change before polling day, but the state of the parties at the moment suggest the SNP will be polling around their previous level.
#7 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 10:24 am
Fair enough John, I can’t really argue with that. Except only to add that I didn’t actually ‘jimmy’ the SNP result in my post (as much as I did the Green and Lib Dem vote share). The SNP vote could drop to about 81,500 and the result would still be 5 SNP, 1 Green, 1 LD.
I agree it is unlikely but I guess a point that I should have developed more in the post is just how vulnerable the Tory leader is and how remarkable that is given how safe Salmond, Gray and Scott are. Should the Conservatives not have tried harder to make sure their leader definitely got back into Holyrood? Are they even that bothered?
I suppose Annabel couldn’t change constituency or region so there isn’t much to be done but, still, it piques my interest.
#8 by Jeff on January 11, 2011 - 6:46 pm
Perhaps. It is a contrived set of results after all. To be fair though, a less charitable person than I could suggest that I am wildly overestimating the Lib Dem vote. I have you down by about 25% but polls have you down by lower than that. A two horse race should pull votes into the SNP-Labour vortex too.
#9 by The Burd on January 11, 2011 - 6:30 pm
An interesting and scary blogpost! But it also points up the limits of a purely psephological approach that ignores the reality of the politics on the ground at its peril.
First, this is traditional voter heartland particularly in Labour terms though it now has a very rainbow like diversity in terms of council administrations. I would like it to be different but I cannot see the Greens making a breakthrough on the regional vote here in 2011. They didn’t manage it in 2003 and won’t happen now.
Second, Renfrewshire council is now SNP run and as the boundary changes show their strength in this area puts them in a good place to take the seat, not least because Derek McKay has a high profile leading the council. If that happens, it’s likely that Labour will pick up votes on 2nd vote.
Third, if they also lose Eastwood to the Tories they will pick up regional votes from this seat as well. But Ken Macintosh and Jim Murphy are strong local performers – I wouldn’t write them off just yet. And if Lab holds this seat, Annabel is a shoe in.
Fourth, I think Kenneth Gibson will hold on to Cunningham North even with boundary changes. He is a redoubtable local campaigner and North Ayrshire council, Labour run, is and has slashed services already, due to them being caught up in Icelandic bank affair. Again Labour will pick up regional votes.
But in this seat, as with West Renfrewshire area generally, East Dunbartonshire seats and parts of Dumbarton seat, there is a latent Tory vote that should see them squeak in a list seat as well as a constituency gain. Likewise, there is a big Lib Dem vote in Inverclyde area, East Dunbartonshire and also Eastwood. Ross Finnie also enjoys high profile and longevity etc.
Based on combination of the science and the realpolitik I envisage 3 seats SNP, 2 Labour, 1 Lib Dem and 1 Tory with Tories taking Eastwood, SNP taking Renfrewshire West and holding Cunninghame North.
If Labour holds Eastwood, Renfrewshire and retakes Cunninghame North, then possibility of 5 SNP regional seats but still with 1 Lib Dem and 1 Tory becomes more likely.
But no Green I’m afraid. And we have ignored the dynamics of the new Dumbarton seat which already has a latent SNP big 2nd vote and again, an SNP run council making an okay fist of things.
#10 by David Gray on January 11, 2011 - 6:56 pm
I suspect you are right that Labour will retake Cunninghame North; however Jackson Carlaw winning Eastwood? I am a bit sceptical about this. After all, it was thought that the best chance for the Tories getting a seat in the General Election was at East Renfrewshire with Richard Cook, only for Jim Murphy to increase his majority. Granted people will vote differently in different elections – but that prediction might be a bit too far. You probably have better inside knowledge than me though. Is Carlaw running a strong campaign this early?
#11 by Jeff on January 11, 2011 - 8:28 pm
No inside info but Carlaw has a notional 3,000+ majority and I see no reason why that would
change too much going by the current polls.
#12 by NoOffenceAlan on January 11, 2011 - 10:18 pm
Yes, if the Tory vote holds up sufficiently to “hold” East Renfrewshire, then it is unlikely to fall across the region to less than twice the Green vote.
The final boundaries for the constituencies in the West of Scotland are quite reasonable, but the original proposals were rather bizarre (remember the cross-Clyde North Renfrewshire and Clydebank ?). It would have been interesting though if the proposed Central Paisley and West Renfrewshire seat had come to pass – we might have had Annabel Goldie versus Wendy Alexander!
#13 by fitalass on January 12, 2011 - 1:14 am
“we might have had Annabel Goldie versus Wendy Alexander!”
That would have been a fascinating contest.
#14 by Chris on January 12, 2011 - 1:46 pm
I think it is reasonable to assume that Labour are stronger than in 2007 and the SNP are weaker. It is very likely that Labour will win Cunninghame North: Eastwood is more doubtful.
Surely if Labour win Cunninghame North then the SNP will be compensated by a top-up seat at the Tories expense. If Labour lose Cunninghame North it is more likely that the Tories will get a second top-up seat than either the SNP or Labour. SNP winning Cunninghame N and Tories winning Eastwood sounds an unlikely disaster for Labour. If we are in that territory a few more seats would be changing hands.
BTW The reason Labour wouldn’t encourage a tactical use of the second vote is (1) they can’t take the FPTP seats for granted and (2) most Labour voters, as opposed to activists , would put SNP as their 2nd choice (and vice-versa). This happens already as we can see between the difference in SNP and Labour support in the two ballots.
#15 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 1:56 pm
It is because Labour are stronger now than in 2007 that I would expect voters to realise that they are even less likely to get a regional Labour MSP so would vote accordingly. Not even tactically, just efficiently if they have a second preference.
For the SNP, they are higher up in the polls now than they were this time before 2007 so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to mark them up a little bit on last time around. I may well have overcooked it though, of course.
The SNP probably wouldn’t be compensated with a regional seat if they lost Cunninghame North, that only tends to happen when you have a few other FPTP seats in the bag. Nicola Sturgeon’s seat of Glasgow South, similarly, would not be compensated with an extra regional MSP.
Indeed, if you think about it, if you apply that logic across the board, there would be no change to the 2007 result!
Thanks for the points on Labour not advising its regional voters to vote elsewhere as I am genuinely at a loss.
You’re right that labour can’t be seen to be taking FPTP seats for granted (even though it patently can in some areas) and I had never thought that SNP might be a second choice for some Labour voters but I suppose you may well be correct! Seems counter-intuitive somehow though…
#16 by fitalass on January 12, 2011 - 3:09 pm
Jeff, a couple of caveats here. We are not going to have over a hundred thousand spoilt ballot papers this time around, and I doubt that the SNP are nearly as strong in Glasow/central belt area as they were back in 2007. How that is going to play out between Labour and the SNP will be fascinating this time around. Yet we could see the opposite happening elsewhere like the North East or Edinburgh? But we are definitely seeing very firm dividing lines appearing where both parties are dug in, particularly in their natural heartlands.
#17 by Burdzeyeview on January 12, 2011 - 4:18 pm
i think your key point Jeff in all this – how have the Tories managed to put their leader at risk – is the crux. There is a big risk that she doesn’t get back however we do the electoral maths and to even put your leader in that position just seems very strange.
And yes there will be a bit of switching between constituency seats and regional ones which is why I think most of Labour’s and SNP’s gains across the country will come at Lib Dems’ expense, tho not necessarily in this region.
The Lab/SNP vote axis has been there since 99, particularly in regions like West of Scotland. Can’t explain it either but it’s there. It’s a left of centre thing rather than a constitutional issue but its existence also means the failure of the SNP to articulate the independence case to win over such voters permanently is one which bemuses many.
#18 by Indy on January 12, 2011 - 4:36 pm
In my experience SNP is second choice for most Labour voters and vice versa
#19 by Alec Macph on January 13, 2011 - 11:25 am
I recall similar was thought about the LibDems and Labour.
#20 by Chris on January 12, 2011 - 10:22 pm
Put simply it is a class thing. Both Labour and SNP are seen as working class parties, the Lib Dems and Greens are clearly middle class and outside of Orange Halls so are the Tories.
#21 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 10:46 pm
Simple analysis but makes sense. I just wonder how likely it is that a voter would vote Labour and SNP with 1st and 2nd vote (or vice versa). Presumably once a voter has picked one of the parties then any second votes would go elsewhere?
#22 by Nicola on January 13, 2011 - 12:08 am
How are the notional results for a constituency calculated coz i’ve only ever seen results for whole constituencies & not parts of a constituency.
#23 by fitalass on January 13, 2011 - 3:09 am
‘In my experience SNP is second choice for most Labour voters and vice versa’
But this is the first time that we have had the situation whereby the electorate have already deployed this option to bring about both parties gaining the upper hand in subsequent elections. But the only difference is that Labour are no longer in control at Westminster.
And remember, its not just Labour or the SNP who have a pretty solid core vote up here in Scotland, even if there is a large disparity in actual numbers.
Turnout and tactical voting is going to play a major part of the final result in Scotland, when was it ever not so? There was a clear ‘hero’ and a clear ‘villan’ last time around, both at Holyrood and Westminster. This time will be no different.
#24 by Indy on January 13, 2011 - 10:53 am
I think in Glasgow the SNP has a more middle class vote. Look at their areas of strength and then look at Labour’s areas of strength.
#25 by Chris on January 13, 2011 - 10:59 am
Jeff
Most working class voters will chose between Labour and SNP (I know this is a generalisation, but bear with me) so a lot of people who prefer Labour, but still like the SNP will vote Labour in the constituency section, but SNP in the top-up seats.
The fact that this has the opposite effect to what they intended is not clear to many people -ie the top up seats determine who runs the country.
I think there are significant numbers of people who split their ballot. Possibly 25% of the electorate. The figures are lost in the noise, but it could explain the discrepancy in voting between the two ballots.
In fact it is a very good explanation as why else would Labour come first in the constituency section, but 2nd in the top up section unless people are splitting their vote. It would be strange to assume that it was only Labour voters splitting their ballot, so there must be a cross over.
I might have a look at the data to see if a pattern emerges!
#26 by Chris on January 13, 2011 - 11:01 am
Sorry – on third para – I realise that SNP won both votes nationally in 2007.
#27 by Nicola on January 13, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Who do you guys think will be able to form the government then: the SNP or Labour?
#28 by Jeff on January 13, 2011 - 2:45 pm
Labour, with Green and Lib Dem support making up a coalition. Minority Government won’t work as I honestly don’t think the Labour bench is strong enough. That might be a bit yah-boo-sucks but it’s my honest belief.
#29 by Malc on January 13, 2011 - 3:33 pm
I think Lab minority is the only foreseeable outcome at the moment (for me anyway – I know Jeff disagrees). For one thing, I can’t see how Lab can work with LD at Holyrood and rip them at Westminster. But I agree – Labour front bench is really weak. Might last until Christmas until new arrangements (coalition, new election, SNP forming minority with tacit Tory support…) can be made.
#30 by Chris on January 13, 2011 - 2:22 pm
Both together teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony.
#31 by Nicola on January 13, 2011 - 2:29 pm
Do you think Salmond is right to push independence at this election?
#32 by Jeff on January 13, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Good question. I think it makes him less likely to win the election but that doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t “right” to push the issue as winning elections isn’t the extent of SNP ambitions. What do you think?
#33 by Nicola on January 13, 2011 - 3:09 pm
i think it might improve his chances and it may well be the best chance the SNP get for an independence referendum.
I also think if we don’t want independence now then we never will unless of course in 5 or 10 years the Tories gain a majority & the Scottish elections are close at hand, which i think is the reason behind the proposal of a 5 year fixed term instead of a 4 year fixed term. Cameron doesn’t want a Tory majority with the Scottish election so close at hand.
Remember Cameron has said he doesn’t want to be the English Prime Minister with the Scottish more likely to favour independence with a majority Tory government. Before the election 27% said they would support independence in a referendum with a further 31% saying they would change their mind if a Tory government was returned. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7346922/Scottish-independence-support-at-record-low.html
A Tory government has now been returned but without a majority so i think now is strategically the best time to push for independence or you could wait for a Tory majority to be returned.
#34 by flying train on January 13, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Jeff
couple of questions / comments.
1. you mention recent polling in an answer above. i am not aware of anything since august 2010, can you point me towards what polling you have seen?
2. not sure about your list of who was elected in what order in 2007 (unless i am missing something), but I believe goldie was elected first with tories having 40k odd votes, then the nats got 2nd and so on. SNP received 75,953, but you must divide this by their single constituency + the added 1 for d’hondt formula. does not make a difference to seats overall but 2 con seats much ‘safer’ as it were as they got 1st and 5th seat.
3. what happens to regional vote is of course a matter of opinion, however i think history can give us a guide. in 1999, even though labour were expected to do well, most labour voters seemed to vote 1st and 2nd labour (unless some sort of made switching elsewhere) as 2 votes were relatively similar.
In 2003 and 2007, the labour 2nd vote dropped away as votes started to realise that as you say a 2nd labour vote was wasted across much of the central belt.
Where I think 2011 is different is that labour are now out of power both at holyrood and Westminster. Labour will see an increase both in constituency and I feel list vote. What we may see is come 2015 that list vote dropping again as people look elsewhere. Naturally this will only be settled come may.
#35 by Malc on January 13, 2011 - 3:40 pm
On point 2, certainly, you are correct. The stats are here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/elections/2007/documents/Table10.pdf
#36 by Jeff on January 13, 2011 - 3:59 pm
1 – Pretty sure I saw on the SNP press release page a few polls over the past couple of months. They may have been Westminster-related though.
2 – I think you may be missing something. Tories did receive 40k regional votes but they also one FPTP constituency of Eastwood so they also had this 40k total divided by 2, same as the SNP and its 73k (or whatever it was). So the SNP got a good few regional MSPs under its belt and the Lib Dems got one in before Annabel Goldie was selected in round 4.
Scratch all of the above – I’ve just seen that the Tories didn’t actually win Eastwood as I, for some reason, thought they had. So with that notional 3,500 majority, Jackson Carlaw has done very well out of the boundary changes (I was wondering why someone had put “hold” in inverted commas)
3 – I actually agree with you on your third point. I don’t think there will be as much dropping away of the Labour 2nd vote as there perhaps should be, unless there is a direct, official communication from any of the parties that resonates with the public (which I still think Labour should do as this alone could decide the balance of power – a few thousand Labour votes going to Greens or Lib Dems in several regions could mean a crucial 2 or 3 SNP candidates being frozen out)
Thanks for setting me straight with number 2!
#37 by Gaz on January 13, 2011 - 5:05 pm
There isn’t half a lot of conjecture here about how SNP and Labour voters use their second vote.
Actually, the evidence is available in black and white in the electronic voting data released by the Scottish Office.
It is painfully clear that, right across the country, only about 5% of voters vote SNP or Labour for the constituency then vote the other way on the list.
As many, if not more, SNP and Labour constituency votes leak away on the list to the LibDems and Tories and other parties that are not contesting the constituency – in about even numbers as it happens.
#38 by Mad Jock McMad on January 13, 2011 - 8:21 pm
The vote in May will not be decided by Labour or SNP core voters but by the disillusioned or fearful from the other parties.
The Libdem vote is collapsing the question for those ex Libdem voters is who do they think will do a better job for Scotland?
Gray who constantly puts his foot in his own mouth or Wee Eck who has successfully brought inward investment and new jobs to Scotland.
The question also that has to be faced is the overwhelming support amongst Scottish voters for full fiscal autonomy across all parties – again who will deliver this?
Gray or Wee Eck.
Then there is the $1million question. Given New Labour’s economic disaster in subbing the world of finances biggest ever Ponzi Scam would you trust Gray with our pocket money?
Maybe the good folk of the West and Central areas of Scotland are waking up to the very dubious practices that Purcell’s fall exposed in Labour in Scotland last April?
A trawl of the local papers around Glasgow suggests growing unrest with Labour and their malfeasance.
There are too many variables to call how this will all fall out, including the level of ‘wasted votes’ in this region, the loss of a number of ballot boxes and the abject failure of the vote counting system last time around.