ICM, for many the creme de la creme of political polling, has released its latest set of results as follows (constituency/list):
Labour – 39%/37%
SNP – 35%/34%
Tories – 12%/13%
Lib Dems – 10%/9%
Greens – -/4%
In terms of seats, I make the breakdown to be:
Labour – 56 (49/7)
SNP – 46 (19/27)
Tories – 15 (1/14)
Lib Dems – 10 (4/6)
Greens – 1 (0/1)
Margo – 1 (0/1)
Tight seats include – Western Isles (Labour win by 150 votes), Edinburgh East (Labour win by 545 votes), Kilmarnock (Labour win by 580 votes), Clackmanannshire & Dunblane (Labour win by 717 votes), Edinburgh West (Lib Dem win by 229 votes over SNP).
The regions deserve some scrutiny too.
– Glasgow sees 5 SNP MSPs returned, Nicola Sturgeon amongst them but no Patrick Harvie at the Parliament, missing out by 1,100 votes.
– Central sees the SNP take a remarkable 6 MSPs, the Conservatives quite comfortably taking the remaining spot
– The Highlands and Islands stays relatively unchanged with the SNP and Labour picking up an extra seat each at Lib Dem and Tory expense
– The strong showing by Labour in the Lothians, taking eight of the nine seats, means they do not pick up any regional spots. Neither do the Lib Dems with the SNP on 4 and one each for the Conservatives and Greens (making Alison Johnstone the de facto leader of the Greens in Holyrood, a sort of ‘Lucas of the North’)
There is nothing too remarkable to say about the remaining regions so let’s have a quick think about what may change between this poll and May 5th.
For a start, the Gray question remains the main undecided of this campaign. The Labour leader was placed third in a poll of leaders over the weekend, behind Annabel Goldie, and one cannot expect Gray’s party ratings to stay buoyant if his personal ratings remain so low. Iain Gray may benefit from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls by his sides from time to time and also from a ‘give me a chance’ direct appeal to the public which may soften up the electorate but stepping out of Salmond’s shadow remains unlikely and that can only be to the SNP’s benefit.
While the election is a two-horse race, it is also fair to assume that the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens will see a slight rise as polling day gets closer. This may not happen, maybe it really will go down to the wire with a Salond vs Gray narrative but most elections see a padding out of the ‘other’ vote in the last week or two of voting.
For me, the final key consideration is tactical voting, of course it is. I would imagine these polls mainly consist of opinions of who people would vote for in an ideal world but once those ‘only x and y can win here’ leaflets drop through the letterboxes, the voting patterns can shift dramatically.
The SNP is enjoying the rare position of being in a lot of second place positions going into this election, off the back of the strength of the last one in 2007. Will many people be minded to vote the Lib Dems or Conservatives into 3rd or 4th or will the competency of the Scottish Government and the personal appeal of Alex Salmond harden minds into keeping the Grays, Bakers, Kerrs and Baillies away from power?
One can only suspect so, and perhaps even hope for it more than a little bit too…
I tell you one thing though, bleedin’ obvious as it may be: pushing ‘second vote Green’ will be a difficult sell to SNP-minded individuals while the Nats remain just a few percentage points behind Labour. Green shoots in new green votes look decidedly hard to come by…
#1 by douglas clark on March 19, 2011 - 9:11 am
Jeff,
What do you make of the delta in all of this? It seems that the SNP are gradually moving towards parity in voting intention. And that is, presumably absent the million quid that Brian Soutar and I raised ( 😉 )
I think predictions, this far out don’t take account of that, nor Iain Grey being exposed as the ‘Member who just waves a bit of paper’. Which might appear on our screens shortly.
What I am trying to say is that what movement there is, is not in Labour’s favour.
#2 by Jeff on March 19, 2011 - 10:42 am
Definitely agree Douglas. Polls are tricky beasts of course but, as you say, the SNP has almost closed a 10point gap without spending an election war chest against a 3rd rate opponent for FM. I’m just going to follow the polls as the weeks go by and not get ahead of myself but I still agree the game is on in terms of who will emerge the largest party.
#3 by Andrew on March 19, 2011 - 9:21 am
On your last point, I’m an SNP voter who would really like to ‘2nd vote green’ but am very unlikely to do so. It’s not just because SNP are unlikely to win my constituency making the second vote more important for them, but also due to the recent posturing by the SGP. Playing the ‘tartan tory’ card and cosying up to Labour is going to put off a lot of 1st vote SNP folk.
#4 by Malc on March 19, 2011 - 9:23 am
Have you taken into account regional variations in vote (ie – the ratio of regional/national vote in the 8 regions) for the list seat element? I only ask because I’m still not convinced about this 56 seats for Labour idea.
Just on a point of interest – West of Scotland. Do you have the Tories returning a list MSP? If not, Goldie is gone. If she’s effectively a lame-duck leader (given the real chance she could lose her seat) what does that mean for the Tories election campaign/ potential coalition chances? And given people would rather she would be FM than Iain Gray (according to your ICM poll) what does that mean for him?
#5 by Jeff on March 19, 2011 - 4:02 pm
Malc, yes, I have adjusted appropriately off the back of the 2007 vote.
The reason that Labour are getting a slightly disproporionately higher share of the seats is because (1) they are just making it over the line in a few FPTP seats with this poll result, seats that could easily go the other way if the voteshares are shaved ever so slightly and (2) the d’hondt system rewards those who do win seats as the indepdendents and smaller parties moss out with ~7% of tHe vote (look at the Greens, 1 or 2 MSPs with 4% voteshare. ‘Perfect’ PR would make that 5).
#6 by douglas clark on March 19, 2011 - 9:44 am
Malc,
Perhaps you could explain that to interested people like me?
I am as Green as you get, but, as of this moment I am voting for Nicola Sturgeon and my second vote will go to another SNP candidate. Why should I vote otherwise? I think the SNP is behind Green policies generally.
Go on, do tell?
#7 by Malc on March 19, 2011 - 9:48 am
I don’t know what you mean – if you mean the quote at the end of the post:
“pushing ‘second vote Green’ will be a difficult sell to SNP-minded individuals while the Nats remain just a few percentage points behind Labour. Green shoots in new green votes look decidedly hard to come by…”
those are Jeff’s words, not mine – so he’ll have to explain. But I think the point is really that SNP voters are less likely to give their list vote to the Greens when they have a chance themselves of overcoming Labour’s seat tally if they can gather up list seats. But perhaps that’s not what you meant?
#8 by danny1995 on March 19, 2011 - 9:53 am
Doesn’t stun me that Harvie is out although I fancy the SNP to nick Kelvin if the Greens don’t stand which will save Harvie. Can’t see Labour winning Pentlands.
#9 by Jeff on March 19, 2011 - 10:30 am
Interesting, I’m inclined to agree. On top of that I believe Nicola will win her seat fairly comfortably.
#10 by Doug Daniel on March 19, 2011 - 10:02 am
I can’t understand the massive difference between Labour and Iain Gray’s poll ratings. Do people not understand that if they contribute towards Labour getting the largest number of seats, they’re also putting Iain Gray into Bute House?
Labour voters…
#11 by Jeff on March 19, 2011 - 10:29 am
I honesty don’t think that link has been made yet. An anti-Tory vote is currently a Labour vote by the looks of things. We’re un unchartered territory with a Tory Government in London under devolved Scotland so who is to say if that will change. The SNP should find an even clearer way to message that there is no extra benefit to voting Labour just because Cameron is PM.
#12 by Doug Daniel on March 19, 2011 - 10:42 am
You’re probably right about the link not being made yet. That’s why I think undecided voters in particular are going to get to the polling booths and plump for the SNP and Alex Salmond after all.
The message that needs to be conveyed to voters is that, even if everyone in Scotland had voted Labour at the 2010 election, we’d still have a Tory government. So the only way to guarantee Scotland is never again ruled by a Tory Westminster government is… Independence. It disappoints me that the SNP haven’t managed to capitalise on this thus far.
#13 by John Ruddy on March 19, 2011 - 7:00 pm
Actually, you might be wrong. If Labour had won every seat in Scotland (what I presume you mean by “if everyone in Scotland had voted Labour at the 2010 election”) then Labour would have had 276 seats, and a coalition with the Lib Dems would have had 333. Once you discount the Sinn Fein Mps, that would have produced an overall majority of 11 – not much, but still workable. And a majority of 27 over the tories.
An interesting what-if.
#14 by Colin on March 19, 2011 - 8:37 pm
Nope – you’re counting the Lib Dems twice. If Labour won every seat in Scotland, the LDs would have had only 46 seats, making a LibLab coalition only 322, four shy of a majority.
In other words, I hope you’ll concede that there was literally nothing Scotland could have done to escape the Tories this time – save the obvious.
#15 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 11:55 am
Oops – you’re right, I apologise.
#16 by John Ruddy on March 19, 2011 - 7:05 pm
I also dont get this “undecided voters in particular are going to… plump for the SNP and Alex Salmond”
I think virtually everyone in Scotland has heard of, and more importantly has an opinion on Alex Salmond. He’s a “marmite” politician – you either love him or hate him. If you love him, you’re already voting SNP. If you hate him – you’re either voting for someone else or undecided.
I cant see people who either hate him, or have no strong opinion either way suddenly having a Pauline conversion in the ballot box thinking “actually that Alex Salmond is a fantastic guy – what have I been thinking the last 20 years?” and suddenly voting SNP.
In short – those undecideds arnt going to go the SNP’s way – if they’ll vote its for someone else – or they wont vote.
#17 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2011 - 9:35 am
Undecided voters are undecided because they don’t have strong opinions on any one party. When it comes to the crunch, people tend to stick with what they know, as they don’t like change. That’s why incumbancy is an important factor in elections, because people think “I’ve not actually got any problem with this lot, and I don’t particularly care about the rest, so I might as well just keep this lot in.”
Also, some of those undecideds may be SNP voters who haven’t been happy with a particular SNP policy, and are entertaining the idea of voting for someone else. Again, when it comes to the crunch, they’ll vote SNP too. I’m by no means saying that every undecided voter in Scotland will vote for the SNP, but it’s equally ridiculous to suggest that none of them will.
Oh, and you’re quite correct about Salmond being a “love him or hate him” kind of guy. Polls suggest most people like him and think he’s doing a good job, which is another factor undecided voters will take into account when placing their vote – “I dunno about any of these candidates, but that Salmond guy is doing a good job, so I might as well vote for his lot.”
#18 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 8:48 pm
Yes, I suspect that there will be people thinking that – but what makes you think they havnt made that decision already?
And bear in mind that Alex Salmonds name will not be on the ballot paper in 72 out of 73 constituencies – unlike last time.
#19 by Doug Daniel on March 21, 2011 - 7:48 am
“but what makes you think they havnt [sic] made that decision already?”
Erm… we’re still talking about “undecided voters” here, yeah? Clue’s in the name.
#20 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:04 pm
You still havnt given me a good reason why undecided voters are suddenly go to vote SNP though.
My point is that virtually everyone has already an opinion on Alex Salmond – for good or ill.
#21 by Indy on March 20, 2011 - 5:52 pm
What about the significant sector of the electorate who simply vote for the person they have heard of?
#22 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 8:47 pm
There is that aspect to it – its what probably explains the SNPs high poll ratings. After all, as I said earlier, I dont think theres too many people left who havnt heard of Alex Salmond and the SNP?
#23 by Doug Daniel on March 21, 2011 - 7:44 am
You’re right, this does explain the SNP’s high poll ratings. After all, nobody’s heard of those minority parties like Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.
Oh, hold on a sec, everyone’s heard of them…
#24 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:06 pm
I think we were talking about Alex Salmond rather than the parties themselves.
My point, which I see no one has disputed, is that virtually everyone has heard of, and has an opinion on Alex Salmond. That view of him is surely already factored into the voting intention, as no one is going to suddenly be voting SNP after having this view of AS for all these years/decades.
#25 by Daniel J on March 19, 2011 - 10:06 am
I’m not sure how the Scotland Votes calculator works but they would give Labour : 57, SNP: 45, Con:14, LD:10 and Grn:2
#26 by douglas clark on March 19, 2011 - 10:52 am
Malc,
It was your post @ 4 I was struggling with.
I am a bear of very little brain. I don’t know how to account for regional variations. I don’t want my vote to be wasted and I was hoping you could clarify what I ought to do, tactically. I will definitely give my first vote to Nicola Sturgeon. My second vote is up for discussion.
#27 by Malc on March 19, 2011 - 11:07 am
Ah. Got you. Its how I’ve been working out the regional predictions.
For example, in 2007, Labour’s National share of the list vote was 29.2%. But in the North-east they only got 20% of the vote (that is, 68% of their national vote). Thus their probable share of the vote in the North-east in 2011 would be 68% of their national poll figure. So if we use the last poll figure (36%) it is likely they’d take 24.4% in the NE, if their share in the region compared to the national is the same as in 2007. That’s what I meant.
I haven’t done Glasgow yet, so I can’t give advice on that note. But we’ll get there in plenty time!
#28 by douglas clark on March 19, 2011 - 11:24 am
Malc @ 14,
Cheers! I shall await your analysis with interest 🙂
#29 by Steve on March 19, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Does anyone know what the SSP have been getting in recent polls? I’m in lothians and I’d love it if we could swap the Tory you’re predicting for a socialist instead!
#30 by Jeff on March 19, 2011 - 6:16 pm
No idea, good question Steve. I daresay the detail will be available soon but the Socialists realistically only have a chance in the West so we may not know how they are doing until the votes are counted. It’s a bit like polling for Margo nationally, not much point really.
SNP taking 5/6 seats, Tories in there, Lib Dems in there, Socialists in there. I’m worried for Patrick……..
#31 by Steve on March 19, 2011 - 7:13 pm
You know i’m hoping for an SSP seat somewhere, but I genuinely wish Patrick Harvie good luck. There must be a bit of a personal vote mounting for him now given his stance on the cuts and appearances on bbcqt and even the news of the world as Indiana Jones!
I’m sure I saw something about a high percentage of pensioners indicating support for the SSP, at least they are likely to bother to turn out and vote. I’m hopefull.
#32 by Colin on March 19, 2011 - 8:46 pm
What about Gorgeous? Is he still standing in Glasgow? If so, I can’t see him failing to make it, presumably at the expense of the SNP.
#33 by James on March 20, 2011 - 12:12 pm
He’s got no organisation and every news story about him has been about his fractious relations with either the SSP or Solidarity. Bet against.
#34 by Daniel J on March 20, 2011 - 3:04 pm
YouGov had em on 4%..
#35 by Danny1995 on March 19, 2011 - 6:55 pm
I’ll say it now, Patrick is toast unless the SNP win at least one Glasgow constituency(Kelvin and Southside being the favourites, Cathcart and Shettleston dark horses.)
The best idea for th Greens would have been for Patrick Harvie to stand in the Lothians in my opinion.
I think we’ll end up with 4 SNP seats, a Tory, a Liberal and Patrick, but it could well be 5 SNP, 1 CON, 1 LD, or 4 SNP, 1 CON, 1 LD and either the SSP or George Galloway’s coalition against cuts.
I’d love to see some Green gains but I can see the top 2 squeezing their vote to be honest.
#36 by Daniel J on March 19, 2011 - 8:02 pm
I’m not sure. Can you see the LDs vote with their new number 1. candidate staying above the Greens in Glasgow?
#37 by Colin on March 19, 2011 - 8:48 pm
Has there been much in the way of Glasgow-specific polling? I’d be pretty surprised if the Greens don’t beat the LDs there.
#38 by Dubbieside on March 19, 2011 - 8:54 pm
Jeff
Before everyone gets to stuck up on these polls which are very heavily weighted, just a reminder of the poll that was supposed to be the gold standard at the 2007 election.
At the 2007 Scottish elections ICM came out as top pollster.
ICM 30 April 2007
SNP Con 32% :: Reg 29%
Lab..Con 34% :: Reg 30%
2007 election result:-
SNP Con 32.9% :: Reg 31.0%
Lab..Con 32.2% :: Reg 29.2%
Thanks to “Castaway in the Hootsmon for the reminder.
http://news.scotsman.com/holyroodelections/Scott-Macnab-Iain-Gray-should.6736686.jp
Comment no 22.
Why would any SNP supporter even consider voting Green? Harvie has made it obvious that he will nail his colours to Labours mast in May.
Vote Green and your vote will turn Gray.
#39 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 12:00 pm
And how reliable will that support be to Labour after the election? I’m sure you will recall that the Greens were supposed to be supporting the SNP government – much was made of it at the time.
Now, I’m not saying they were wrong to change their support – but will Labour want to rely on a party which has proved itself to be unreliable in the past? Maybe not.
Why do the SNP seem to be engaging in this policy of scaremongering “Vote Labour and you’ll get the horrible Iain Gray as FM” or “Vote Green and and you’ll get that horrible Iain Gray as FM” – what next? “Unless you vote for the SNP Iain Gray will kill all the kittens”?
#40 by James on March 20, 2011 - 12:11 pm
There’s a lot of nonsense talked about the Green position.
We commissioned a poll. It showed us on 6 seats and Labour on 59. We said we’d be ready to talk to them. If it had shown us on 6 seats and the SNP on 59 we’d have said the same about the Nats. Both parties have substantial failings, both have points where we agree with them and not the other, and there’s even the odd point where all three agree.
We opposed the Budget at Stage 1 because it just passed on Tory cuts. Labour abstained. When they joined us in voting against at Stage 3 (without, let it be noted, any plan to raise more revenue) it was hardly Greens lining up with Labour.
If you think we’ve been unreliable, just take the time and talk to any senior SNP Minister – we have been totally consistent on the issues, where we agree (inc places where opposition would have been cheaper and easier: alcohol, Megrahi etc) and where we disagree. We never signed up in 2007 to support them where we disagreed – we signed up just to vote for Salmond and his Ministers to be appointed. They’d won the election and they deserved a fair chance, that’s all.
#41 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2011 - 7:34 pm
Call it what you want, at least it’s accurate to say “vote Labour and you’ll get Gray as FM”, because if Labour get enough seats to form the next government, Iain Gray will indeed be the FM. Labour’s entire campaign last year was based on the lie that “only Labour can save Scotland from the Tories”. Over a million voters fell for that lie, and what have those 41 Labour MPs done to save Scotland from the Tories? Nothing.
As for the kittens thing, it’s clearly hyperbole, but let’s face it, if the SNP mentioned a kitten cull, it would become Labour policy within hours. Maybe someone should try it for a joke to see what happens. I think you’ll find the SNP’s election messages will be positive, as they were last time around. The more cynical stuff is just online blog comments from supporters like myself, who are frustrated at seeing Labour continue to be the highest in the polls, despite how wretched their front bench team is and how well the SNP team has performed over the past 4 years.
#42 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 8:52 pm
I would love to see some positive messages coming out of the SNP – but all we hear about is how bad Iain Gray would be!
Now, I’m not going to say our own campaign has been 100% positive – but at least we have policies to talk about – by constantly focusing on the personalities, it makes me think that the SNP are afraid to talk about policy, because then people will realise that the only thing which makes them different from the other parties is independance, and we all know how (un)popular that is, and how highly ranked the issue is with the voters.
#43 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 9:44 am
An SNP supporter could say the exact same thing. Just replace every ‘SNP’ in your statement with ‘Labour’. There are no facts here, just the musings of someone with a political bias.
#44 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Although Labour has attacked Alex Salmond as First Minister – I’ve never seen anything on the same vitriolic cutting and personal attacks as the SNP have made on Iain Gray.
There are many cruel and hurtful things we could say about Alex Salmond, or indeed many of the Front bench of the SNP – but I wont, and we havnt.
We even have the “anyone who votes Labour must be stupid” line – When have you ever seen someone from Labour claim nationalist voters were anything other than misguided?
#45 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 7:12 pm
You’ve obviously never been to the Scotsman website then!
Alex Salmond’s conference speech was positive for the most part. He has been negative in parliament of late. However, again, both parties are guilty of this – I remember the 2008 Glenrothes by-election which was one of the most negative campaigns I have seen in a long time.
This is something all parties share, not just Labour and the SNP. It seems that attacking it as if it shouldn’t exist is like Canute trying to hold back the tide. We have to accept that it comes with the terrain.
#46 by Indy on March 21, 2011 - 10:10 am
Come on – it is ENTIRELY Labour’s decision to make this a contest of personality not policy.
Council tax freeze, free prescriptions, tuition fees. council house building – you have adopted SNP policy on all of those things. You are even pledging to “protect” A&E services that no-one but Labour has ever threatened to shut down!
It makes no sense to me as a strategy because the consequence of narrowing the choices in that way is that it will come down in many voter’s minds to who would they would like to see as FM and we all know who will win that one.
#47 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:17 pm
And I can name many policies that the SNP have pinched from Labour – Living wage, free prescriptions (this has long been an aspiration for Labour activists virtually since they were introduced – check your history), council house building (again check your history). These are all historically Labour policies which have been taken up by the SNP. If we have “pinched” these policies, its more a case of our taking them up again after a lapse.
Constant attacks on Iain Gray personally from the SNP are turning it a personality contest – and this is not a tactic that Labour have adopted in return. Draw your own conclusion.
#48 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 7:08 pm
From my perspective it seems that both the SNP and Labour are just as bad on this issue…
You are unable to see it because you are a Labour supporter and the SNP fans are unable to see it because they are SNP supporters. It’s quite funny and obvious to see when you take a step back.
Just look at some of Ed Ball’s comments about Alex Salmond only last week.
Politics has a lot to do with personality whether we like it or not. How about we don’t turn it into a sticking point and we tell our ‘leaders’ to get thicker skins, otherwise they are in the wrong business.
#49 by Indy on March 22, 2011 - 10:35 am
Again, come on!
Labour could have abolished right to buy and kick started a new generation of council house-building. They could have abolished prescription charges etc. They didn’t.
It is not credible to argue that you just let these policies lapse – perhaps through some administrative oversight? You forgot you believed in them? – and only remembered that they were actually Labour policies when the SNP implemented them!
#50 by Dubbieside on March 20, 2011 - 1:23 pm
What next is if Scotland gets Gray it will be a disaster for all of Scotland.
Labour yesterday showed they have no interest in Scotland, they are only interested in using it as a stepping stone to try and help them regain Westminster, which is all they are interested in.
Just why they think that a vote in Scotland will help voters in England forget 13 years of a totally useless Labour government is anyone’s guess. Maybe as taxes raise they will forget Browns “light touch” regulation of the banks, that lead to record deficits. Maybe they will forget the doubling of the starting rate of tax that directly penalised the poor but left all their city palls to rake in their millions. Maybe they will forget that the gap between the rich and the poor widened during Labours 13 years. We could go on and on, Iraq, cash for honers, ID cards, detention without trial, the list of Labour shame is endless.
Thats a lot of maybes, but I think most voters have longer memories than Labour politicians.
#51 by John Ruddy on March 20, 2011 - 8:56 pm
And I’m sure you’re now going to say how much better all those things would have been if the only other possible UK government – a tory one – would have been?
The tories wanted even lighter regulation (“Gordon Brown is being too tough on the banks” – G. Osborne 2005)
The tories wanted less redistribution
More Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war than Lib Dems and tories combined
The gap between rich and poor widened less than if Labour had done nothing (IFS 2010)
Cash for honours (Brian Souter gives SNP £1m, SNP drops Bus regulation policy)
#52 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 9:41 am
Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is a perfect example of the tu quoque fallacy and it does nothing to absolve the sins of New Labour.
Is that really the dichotomy that you want to set up for the people of these isles? Bad -vs- really bad?
As to what the Tories/Liberals/SNP would have done – we can only speculate – Labour actually did those things.
#53 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:18 pm
We dont have to speculate – we have their policy statements made at the time in response to the Labour position. Its quite clear that things would have been much worse under a conservative government.
If you dont think that, then why dont you vote conservative?
#54 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 7:03 pm
I’m not a Conservative supporter, that’s why. You see, as I alluded to above, I don’t support this dichotomy that you seem to want to believe in.
And yes, it is just speculation – because nobody would have speculated that the Labour party would lead us into a war that would result in thousands of deaths and yet it happened.
I am a floating voter (at the general election I voted Liberal – something which I certainly will not be doing this time). I have experienced 13 years of Labour policies and administration and it’s not so much that I think them wrong or incompetent, I thoughts some of their policies are actually morally evil. As such, they will not be getting my vote unless there is some dramatic change. However, unlike your suggestion, I shall not be voting Conservative either.
What I find most telling is that there is a tacit acceptance/admission of Labour failures in your comment:
“Its quite clear that things would have been much worse under a conservative government.”
I would draw your attention to ‘much worse’ – so presumably Labour just made the situation ‘worse’ and not ‘much worse’ then? They fact that you have this tacit admission and continue to not only support Labour, but campaign for them, is something I find oddly distrubing and hard to explain.
#55 by Doug Daniel on March 21, 2011 - 10:21 pm
“More Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war than Lib Dems and tories combined”
Maths isn’t your strongest subject by the looks of things – Labour had nearly 10 times the number of MPs as the Lib Dems in 2003, so it was quite easy for them to surpass the 46 Lib Dem MPs who voted against the war. That’s 46 out of 46, 100% of their MPs. Did 100% of Labour MPs vote against the war?
Oh, and the thing about Souter’s donation leading to the SNP dropping bus regulation was disproven years ago. However, if you’re going to perpetuate old rumours, at least get your numbers right – it was £500,000, not £1,000,000. Unless you’re suggesting Souter and the SNP have an agreement that they will not bring up bus regulation as long as he continues to donate £500,000 every election?
#56 by Doug Daniel on March 21, 2011 - 10:25 pm
I’ll point it out before anyone else does – 46 MPs was the number of Lib Dem MPs after the 1997 election. They of course had 52 in 2003. And since Labour had 413, that’s more like 8 times the number, rather than 10 times. The main point still stands, however.
#57 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 8:07 am
Since when did I mention percentages?
I said more Labour Mps voted against than Lib Dems and tories combined. I think you’ll find that statement factually accurate.
#58 by Doug Daniel on March 22, 2011 - 11:54 pm
You didn’t mention percentages, and that’s exactly my point. You can’t compare the number of MPs who voted against the war from each party like that, because as I’m pointing out, even 100% Lib Dem MPs was only 52 MPs at that point. If just 53 Labour MPs had voted against the war, it would still have been correct to say that more Labour MPs voted against the war than Lib Dem MPs… but 53 out of 413 is not as impressive as 52 out of 52.
Just because a statement is factually accurate doesn’t mean it isn’t misleading.
#59 by James on March 21, 2011 - 11:07 pm
the thing about Souter’s donation leading to the SNP dropping bus regulation was disproven years ago
{citation required}
#60 by Doug Daniel on March 23, 2011 - 12:04 am
A rubbish get out I know, but I can’t for the life of me find the article I read this in any more. I don’t suppose “SNP bus regulation conference commitment was never actually part of costed manifesto in the first place” is as sexy a headline as “SNP drop bus regulation pledge after £500,000 donation”.
#61 by James on March 23, 2011 - 12:48 am
That’s totally not the issue. Here’s the timeline.
It was in the 2003 SNP manifesto.
Then £500k arrived from Souter.
Then it wasn’t in the 2007 SNP manifesto.
I can’t prove he got great value for money, but I totally accept “it was never in the manifesto originally” to be true – but irrelevant.
#62 by Doug Daniel on March 23, 2011 - 1:31 pm
Well, as I recall it, the issue most people had was that it had been voted on at the SNP conference before the election, but by the time the manifesto came out, it was nowhere to be found. I would suggest it wasn’t the only 2003 manifesto commitment that failed to make it onto the 2007 manifesto, and it’s pretty easy to explain it away as being shunted during the costing process in favour of a bigger commitment.
Having said that, I do wish they had kept it as a key policy, as I think public transport should be run for the public, rather than for private profit. Although personally I think the trains are the ones to target – after all, getting folk on buses doesn’t really get them off the roads, and bus ticket prices aren’t quite in the same league of extortion as rail ticket prices.
#63 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 7:48 am
I didnt quote percentages – I quoted numbers. And my numbers are right.
#64 by Dubbieside on March 21, 2011 - 2:37 pm
No Mr Ruddy I am not going to say how much better things would have been if the torys had won, mainly because I have no interest in a Westminster government, I, it may surprise you to learn, think that Scotland would be a far better run if it was wholly governed by Holyrood.
Your reply will never disguise the fact that the UK thought it had elected a socialist government and what it got was another brand of torys.
Your points are truly risible,
The gap between rich and poor widened under a supposedly socialist government, fact.
The torys wanted less distribution, so what, it was supposed to be a socialist government in power.
More Labour MPs voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq than tory or libdems combined, are you really proud of that fact, that Labour MPs voted to blindly follow the American NeoComs into an illegal war?
As for mentioning Brian Souter, have you forgotten Sainsbury, £30 million and counting, what about Ecclesteen or the Indian steel magnates? Remind me again how many Peerages and Knighthoods Labour sold to the highest bidder?
As to what anyone else would have done, no one knows, but we do know Labours record over 13 wasted years. They were elected, they destroyed the economy, put more people into poverty, caused more people to loss their homes and jobs, most people will never forget that.
#65 by Stuart on March 21, 2011 - 3:11 pm
Oh dear. Looks like there’s only one way to settle this…
#66 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:26 pm
To be perfectly honest, if this is the standard of debate you get from nationalists, I might as well give up on this site. It seems that the SNP has never done anything wrong ever, all the country’s problems will be solved the minute we get independance – regardless of what form that will take, or what the state of the country, and every possible thing that is in any way bad for the country (next week – Gravity is a unionist conspiracy to keep people in Scotland) can be laid at the door of the London parties – particularly Labour. It seems that nothing Labour (or indeed any of the other “London” parties) can say or do will ever change your mind.
#67 by James on March 21, 2011 - 5:53 pm
I’d urge you not to give up on the site – there are few enough places where people from different perspectives come together in Scotland, and it would be sad if all our comments were from people from one side of the constitutional question.
#68 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Thanks James, I might have been too hasty – its very frustrating at times when some people think they have never been wrong ever – I am the first to admit Labour’s failings – but I will also talk up our successes – something we didnt do enough of at the general election.
#69 by John Ruddy on March 21, 2011 - 5:21 pm
So you dont deny that Brian Souter paid £1m to stop bus regulation?
Whatever you might think about the cases you mention (and the Sainsbury who has donated to the Labour party no longer has a connection to the supermarket) at least we didnt completely turn around a policy previously agreed upon just because someone with a fat cheque book and a warped sense of morality gave us money.
#70 by Colin on March 21, 2011 - 7:05 pm
Lord Sainsbury still has around a 6% stake in the Sainbury’s supermarket chain. It amounts to millions of pounds worth.
#71 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 8:05 am
I think you’ll find that his beneficial stake is around 0.57% – the rest of it is in an independant trust which donates all its dividends to charity. Unless you’re confusing him with the other Lord Sainsbury, who is a tory.
#72 by Colin on March 22, 2011 - 10:00 am
Even if I’m wrong it’s completely irrelevant. You said:
“and the Sainsbury who has donated to the Labour party no longer has a connection to the supermarket”
Then went on to say:
“I think you’ll find that his beneficial stake is around 0.57% – the rest of it is in an independant trust which donates all its dividends to charity.”
Therefore, you contradict yourself.
Secondly, no I’m talking about the Labour donor.
Thirdly, it’s not an independent trust – firstly, it is a personal venture and secondly it is company registered at Companies House. The name Innotech Advisers Ltd. should give it away – the Ltd. is the important part. Anyway, this third point is really moot, since he gives it to charity anyway. However, the first and second points still stand.
#73 by Indy on March 22, 2011 - 11:06 am
For the last time bus regulation was never in the SNP’s 2007 manifesto, was never going to be in the SNP’s 2007 manifesto, was not consulted on as part of the SNP’s 2007 manifesto preparations and was specifically ruled out as a policy option by the SNP’s transport spokesperson prior to the 2007 election.
The re-nationalisation of the bus network – which is what people very often really mean when they speak about bus regulation – is not legally competent under the terms of the Scotland Act.
Even if it was legally competent it would requite compensatio to be paid to current private sector operators. Stewart Stevenson put a figure on that of around £750 million in one-off costs. Clearly the SNP was not, in 2007, going to commit itself to that level of expenditure or anything like it. Had it done so it would certainly have been a promise that would have been broken and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
#74 by Observer on March 21, 2011 - 7:45 pm
The SNP did not re-introduce bus re-regulation for the same reason that Labour didn’t when they were in power – it is too expensive.
As far as council house building is concerned – Labour policy when they were in power was to force Councils to transfer municipal housing out of local authority control altogether.
& it was the SNP who abolished the right to buy incidentally, not Labour.
So I am afraid that John Ruddy is not being entirely accurate in what he says.
#75 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 8:00 am
My point is that many of these policies were historically Labours.
I never said they were going to be in our current manifesto.
So, if the policies used to be Labours, and have now been adopted by the SNP, who has stolen whose policies?
If the best the SNP can come up with is “wahhh – that boy stole my policies” it only makes them out to sound very childish.
I want to see Labour policies implemented.
I think Labour is best placed to do that, but I wouldnt care if they were implemented by another party – however, some parties seem to suggest that they will, but often have their own, ulterior motives for saying so.
#76 by Indy on March 22, 2011 - 11:21 am
John we are not talking about Labour’s policy position twenty years ago. We are talking about their policy position twenty days ago!
Labour has changed its position on issues that were seen as key dividing lines in this election like the council tax freeze and tuition fees as a deliberate tactic, what the journalists call triangulation.
The question is why?
I would speculate because their private polling tells them that the SNP’s position on these issues has more support than the position Labour was taking – so they u-turned.
There is another reason why they might change their position and that is if they have a view to a post-election situation – presumably not a coalition agreement as no-one can envisage that – but perhaps they are envisioning a Lab minority government dependent on SNP votes to pass its Budget. They therefore take on SNP policies such as council tax freeze because they know that our MSPs would not be able to vote against that.
1.
#77 by Dubbieside on March 21, 2011 - 8:17 pm
Brian Souter donated money to the SNP as is perfectly legal and he is entitled to do. He continues to donate money, if he donated to stop bus deregulation why would he continue to donate, £500.000 this year. Does he want buses deregulated twice?
I also do not think that any Labour supporter should mention free prescriptions. Gordon Brown when he was in opposition called prescription charges “am immoral tax on the sick” When in government he increased prescription charges every year, until they were over £7 per item.
The big difference between the SNP and Labour, is Labour activists may talk about prescription charges and very Labour like, nothing happens except increases. The SNP have abolished them.
Council house building, is that the six council houses Labour built in eight years in Scotland that you are talking about.
I think they were historic Labour policies a long time ago when they were a socialist party.
I think you will find that the standard of debate fell with your kittens comment.
#78 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 7:56 am
I think you’ll find that the standard of debate fell whenever we hear that it will be a disaster for Scotland if Iain Gray becomes FM.
Disaster is what has happened to Japan.
#79 by Indy on March 22, 2011 - 11:29 am
Incidentally – and I really do not mean to pick on you here – I suggest that you do as search on the word”disaster” on the Scottish Labour website.
I agree that the term is over-used in politics but it is over-used by your party as much, if not more so, than everyone else so you are being a tad precious taking offence at it.
#80 by Jeff on March 22, 2011 - 11:32 am
And just to jump on that point, protesting that Iain Gray is ‘better than a disaster’ is a far cry from a full-throated defence of one’s leader.
Yes, personality gets too much of a look-in these days rather than parliamentary democracy but who leads a country is one of the most important factors of any election. Scrutinising Gray and considering his shortcomings is fair, though I agree that just calling him names isn’t.
#81 by Dubbieside on March 21, 2011 - 8:26 pm
Mr Ruddy
I think that I mentioned before that I have no interest in London parties. The clue may be in the name “London Parties”
They are only interested in London, and that is no interest to me, apart from watching all the ways they can waste money.
I have even less interest in London torys, than I have in London Labour, but I am certain of one thing, the only way that Scotland can be rid of the torys once and for all is by self government. Under the present arrangements, and the arithmetic, if England wants and votes for a tory government, Scotland will get a tory government.
#82 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 7:55 am
Unless the SNP plan on banning membership of the tory party in an independant Scotland (and they never tell us what SORT of independant Scotland they want) you cant say that the only way to get rid of them is independance.
As I have said, it seems everything can be solved by independance – next week sunshine all year round if Scotland becomes independant.
#83 by Indy on March 22, 2011 - 10:29 am
No, John, everything will not be solved with independence. But one thing will be.
An independent Scotland would never again be governed by a party which was elected to power by voters in England.
With independence we would get a Scottish Government elected by the Scottish people working exclusively for Scotland.
It is of course technically possible that in a post-independent Scotland the Tories would romp home to electoral victory. But surely you will acknowledge that such an outcome is unlikely, given the lack of popular support for the Tories and what they stand for.
#84 by Doug Daniel on March 21, 2011 - 9:55 pm
Type your comment here
You’re right, virtually everyone has heard of, and has an opinion on, Alex Salmond. The vital element you’re missing out there is that public opinion remains very, very much in his favour. He is still a popular FM, with the next most popular party leader – Annabel Goldie – over 30 points below him. Considering she’s unlikely to be Tory leader for much longer, it must be pretty embarrassing for the party leaders who are even less popular than her.
But questions about whether or not you think Alex Salmond has been a good First Minister, or what your opinions are of the various party leaders, are far more straight forward than asking who you’ll vote for, especially if you don’t have a natural inclination towards any of the parties. I would suggest that undecided voters – who, as you rightly say, will almost certainly already have an opinion on Salmond – will get to the polling booths and think “hmmm, I don’t feel particularly strongly about anyone here. Perhaps I should just vote for the party whose leader I most like. Or, perhaps I should just vote for the current government, since my indifference would suggest a lack of desire to change things. After all, like most humans, change is against my very nature, so I’ll just stick with what I know.”
Do you understand yet why incumbent governments – particularly ones with popular, well-known leaders – are likely to do better amongst undecided voters than the challenging parties? Or do I need to simplify even more?
#85 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 7:53 am
In which case then we may as well all give up – the SNP will coast home with an almost impossible overall majority in May – a repeat of their performance in 2007.
It didnt happen then and it wont happen now. Just because the SNP leader is (much) more popular than his counterparts, it doesnt mean – and it hasnt been the case – that his party will win.
#86 by Shuna on March 21, 2011 - 10:37 pm
John – please don’t leave me here alone. Its important to at least attempt some balance! We (Labour supporters) may be in the tiny miniority here but we have a right to share our view.
#87 by John Ruddy on March 22, 2011 - 7:51 am
It always strikes me as odd, that whilst Labour has a sizeable amount of support in Scotland – at least the equal of the SNP, if not higher, online presence is very much skewed to the nationalist point of view.
Whenever I speak to Labour activists about why they dont blog more, etc, its often put down to the snide and vicious comments that they attract from certain groups.
#88 by Stuart on March 22, 2011 - 7:29 am
Its a shame John is thinking about giving up this board. I’ve enjoyed reading posts from all sides of the political spectrum- Doug McLellan, Indy and Ruddy. Referring to people as “Mr” I believe takes a rather aggressive tone, and really isn’t necessary if we want to have a good debate about politics.
It is frustrating John that SNP supporters on comments boards believe the SNP can do no wrong- away from the cyber world it isn’t always the case, I’ve talked to a number of SNP supporters who are quite embarrassed about the Trump affair as an example, but I digress
Yes be passionate, but there’s no need to get A) personal and B) offensive.
Please don’t let this turn into the Scotsman website!
#89 by Jeff on March 22, 2011 - 9:52 am
“Please don’t let this turn into the Scotsman website!”
Amen brother! While we don’t always have the time to properly review comments we are aiming to avoid the same. Comments are generally good and we do try to trash those that we think don’t make the grade. Perhaps we’ll up the threshold as the campaign gets uglier (which I’m sure it will) and the abuse starts to get thrown around unintelligently.
I definitely enjoy the comments though and am often frustrated that I can’t get involved more. Speaking of which, back to work for me!
#90 by Chris on March 22, 2011 - 9:11 pm
A few points
1. As a Labour supporter I would like to encourage the SNP to put as much resources as possible into a foolhardy attempt to win Kelvin.The tide has turned since 2007 and it really isn’t going to go to the SNP. I am reminded of one nearby blogger who predicted SNP gains all over Scotland last year.
2. I am getting a bit tired of the lazy attacks on Iain Gray. Of course he doesn’t have the charisma of Salmond, but that is not the only charateristic needed to be FM. I don’t think he will be a disaster because he hasn’t appeared on BBC2 comedy shows. I think he may be rather better than Salmond at working across parties. Presumably Salmond will step down if he loses and hand power to Sturgeon (embarassing if she loses Southside with all her activists in Kelvin ;-))
3.The nationalist domination of the scottish blogosphere can be compared to the english blogosphere being dominated by lots of rather odd euro-sceptics. Not that the politics are particularly similar, but it does attract people with an obsessive zeal. I also suspect it is only the same 50 people in Scotland flitting from site to site arguing with each other. In both cases they do love attacking Zanu Liebore and the Fib Dums – also handy codewords for anyone sane to ignore the rest of the comments.
Finally: I hope you can keep the site sane in the run up to the election, when people’s behaviour does get worse. Good luck!
#91 by Jeff on March 22, 2011 - 10:06 pm
Good points Chris, thanks for that.
I can’t think for the life of me which nearby blogger you’re referring to. That said, no need to spell it out 😉
(Also, I’m not ashamed to say I’ve just trashed a few lazy attacks on Iain Gray. People are within their rights to think
and say such things, but not necessarily here)
#92 by James on March 22, 2011 - 10:22 pm
Yeah, we might have to go to tighter moderation to avoid the namecalling.