The big news in the Sunday papers, and what may well prove to be the game-changing moment of the campaign, is that the SNP has moved ahead of Labour in both the constituency and regional section of the polls.
The figures are:
SNP – 40%/35%
Labour – 37%/33%
Conservatives – 11%/12%
Lib Dems – 8%/7%
Greens – -/6%
In terms of seats (and using the same methodology from my half of #SP11 Regionwatch) I make that to be (constituency/regional):
SNP – 33/21 = 54
Labour – 37/12 = 49
Conservatives – 1/13 = 14 (only FPTP seat being Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire, a 1,334 majority over SNP)
Lib Dems – 2/4 = 6 (majorities of only 711 and 1,164 in Orkney and Shetland respectively, both from the SNP)
Greens – 0/5 = 5 (2 in Lothians, 1 in Glasgow, 1 in H&I and 1 in MS&F)
Margo – 0/1 (my base assumption is that Margo will be comfortably re-elected)
Key FPTP wins for the SNP would include: Aberdeen Central (maj of 829 over Labour), Almond Valley (maj of 664 over Labour), Ayr (maj of 129 over Labour), Cunninghame North (maj of 572 over Labour), Edinburgh Pentlands (maj of 340 over Labour), Glasgow Southside (maj of 453 over Labour), Linlithgow (maj of 413 over Labour) and Stirling (maj of 150 over Labour)
That’s not to mention Airdrie & Shotts (SNP 165 votes short), Clydesdale (SNP 657 votes short), Edinburgh Eastern (SNP 16 votes short of Labour), Glasgow Kelvin (SNP 759 votes short of Labour)
A 5 seat winning margin may seem strong but there are more tight victories in my model for the SNP than there is for Labour so if Labour close the gap over the next few weeks and if a few of the above FPTP wins for the Nats are reversed then where does that leave us?
Well, keeping only Glasgow Southside as SNP gains or holds in the first list there and moving Aberdeen Central, Almond Valley, Ayr etc back to current incumbents, while keeping everything else in the model from this poll fixed, then the result becomes:
SNP – 52 (26/26)
Labour – 52 (42/10)
Conservatives – 13 (3/10)
Lib Dems – 7 (2/5)
Greens – 4 (0/4)
Margo – 1
So, neck and neck between Labour and the SNP with the Conservatives intriguingly holding the balance of power. The above also highlights the advantages for Greens in voting tactically for the SNP in many regions, finishing now with 4 seats rather than 5 (losing the 2nd Lothians MSP) whereas the Lib Dems conversely move up to 7 from 6 (picking up a second list MSP in North East).
However, this is not to take away from a remarkable achievement from the SNP, borne out of two main strategies
(1) – pitch the second vote as a vote for who should be First Minister (which it isn’t, this is a parliamentary election, not a Presidential one)
(2) – sell Salmond (and this poll only include 30%-50% of the impact of the SNP manifesto launch and Salmond’s impressive BBC Question Time performance as the fieldwork was Wednesday to Friday)
So, it’s a stellar result for the Nats at just the right time and that momentum is growing. The SNP were 8/1 to win most seats at the start of the year when Labour were streets ahead in the polls, the SNP were 3/1 to win most seats on the evening of the STV debates and today those odds are only 5/4. Being the official odds on favourites for Holyrood 2011 surely beckons and what then for Iain Gray?
SNP voters can now effectively be split into two, there is the ~25%-30% baseload SNP voter that has stuck with the party for at least the majority of the past four years, willing to back the party if asked by a pollster. Then there are the recent converts, the Scots who intend to vote SNP today but would have voted for another party months or even weeks ago.
The key question for me now is not so much what has changed but what would have to change over the next few weeks for those voters to go back from whence they came, and let’s assume that that is back to Labour.
Wheeling out Gordon Brown, as will be the case this month, will not make much of a difference, the election isn’t about independence so attacking the SNP on that score isn’t an option and on policies such as apprenticeships, free education, renewable energy and council tax freezes, Labour policies are more to do with damage limitation than outdoing the SNP in any way. So I really do think Scottish Labour’s options for victory are closing to a point that inevitability around a May 5th defeat isn’t far off.
The only potential fix that a clearly panicked Labour group may go with is to push even harder the clearly flawed message of ‘Tories at Westminster means you need Labour to protect you’. The fear-mongering, the negativity that has cost them before, most notably in 2007, might be enough to scare a few former loyal supporters back into line but it would be desperate stuff. Furthermore, if we really are past the tipping point, then such a negative message could only serve to increase the SNP majority as individual voter behavious becomes a group phenomenon. This ‘now that the Tories are in power’ mantra is a message that Labour has chosen to put at the front of its manifesto and it is linked to many of the key quotes in the press recently. It may come to symbolise the next stage of this campaign but I personally can’t see it working as the mesage is getting mixed.
At the end of the day, voters want to know what they’re getting from who they vote for and the SNP message is clear – five year Council Tax freeze, no nuclear power and a drive towards 100% renewable electrical power by 2020. Easy to understand and easy to digest. The same is largely true of the Greens (public transport a higher priority, raise revenue to offset cuts, no Forth Road bridge) and Lib Dems and Tories.
Labour’s key themes seem to be a focus on cancer waiting times, facing up to David Cameron and a two year freeze on Council Tax. It just doesn’t gel right somehow and, crucially, it doesn’t seem enough to get those lost votes back.
Alex Salmond and his team may well be joyously sliding down the electoral mountain over the next few weeks and, for once, the most important poll may not be the next one, or the one after that or even the one on May 5th. To all intents and purposes, it may prove to be this one if it turns out that the next time Labour lead in a Holyrood poll on either the constituency or regional vote is some way far off in the distance.
And finally, tactical voting considerations – this poll predicts a clean sweep of 10 FPTP constituencies for the SNP in the North East, a region where my model predicts 4 Labour lists MSPs and 0 Green MSPs. Even with 9 FPTP constituencies for the SNP there seems little chance of the party winning a list MSP. Is it worth SNP voters considering voting tactically for a fellow anti-nuclear party? Have the Nats finally found what Glasgow is to Labour and will it have the savvy to use that local opportunity to full advantage?
#1 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 1:48 am
Cracking analysis Jeff (as ever). I’m just in from the pub, so far be it for me to crit your numbers when I’ve had a few Magners… but, I still have the same issues with your model that I had before – namely: the slashing of marginal status of Orkney/ Shetland… and the placing of Ayr/ Edin Pentlands in SNP column. I know this is based entirely on the numbers – and thats what polls are – but I still have reservations (which is what the second half of your analysis points out). If the latter half is right – and the SNP/ Lab are tied – expect fireworks. Especially if its 52 & the Tories are on 13. That’d be ‘mazing!
#2 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 6:37 am
Thanks Malc, and I do agree with you. If there is a bedrock of Tory voters in Pentlands and Ayr then they’ll be amongst the last to abandon Annabel. I can’t really make that assumption in my model though as adding subjective factors quickly dilutes its usefulness.
As you say, I’ve switched some of the seats around in order to see it either way. This is more to point out where the key battlegrounds are rather than ‘correct’ anything as such. With overs and unders, a score draw looks perfectly likely and, well, the Tories would have to back Salmond surely?
Another blog post for another day perhaps! Hope you don’t suffer for those Magners this morning mate 😉
#3 by Aidan Skinner on April 17, 2011 - 1:53 am
The policy differences between the SNP and Labour are, as you point out, marginal – though I think you overstate the extent to which the SNP are leading on the issues mentioned. I would think that though, wouldn’t I?
Given the policy similarities (IMNSHO we should be fighting significantly left of where we are, but that’s another post) what I think will be significant is the ability of parties to mobilise voters and get them to show up on the day.
The SNP probably win this on strength of activist feeling, there’s a distinct sense of… perhaps not apathy but skepticism and reservation as Sunny Hundal pointed out on CiF this week http://s.coop/skepticlabour. Having said that, I suspect on breadth of support Labour probably have an advantage. Our voters may wish the party was more to the Left of where it is (I certainly do) but, in the absence of Green or SSP/Solidarity candidates in the constituencies they’re likely to vote Labour even if it is with a held nose.
#4 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 6:31 am
Thanks Aidan. I’m not sure if voters are nostalgic enough to still see Labour as the automatic left option and, anyway, I’m
not sure you’re not overstating to what extent a large slab of the electorate will just picked the most left option. That seems a little too
simplistic to me.
My belief that the SNP is leading on the issues goes hand in hand with the marginality bettween SNP and Labour policies. The onus is on Labour to change the status quo as it is the challenging party and, so far, its policy basket is too similar to the SNP’ and, in some key instances, falling short (C Tax). Now, the SNP might be promising more than is possible but that is sadly a moot point when it comes to election campaigns if the majority of people don’t realise that gap at the time.
#5 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:14 pm
“Now, the SNP might be promising more than is possible”
Why change a winning strategy? It worked in 2007 after all!
#6 by Alexander Belic on April 17, 2011 - 2:45 am
“Is it worth SNP voters considering voting tactically for a fellow anti-nuclear party?”
Not if:
“The primary tactical voting consideration for the Greens though is to try to induce would-be Labour voters to vote Green in order to reduce the SNP’s chances of maximising its number of regional MSPs here. ” as you say in your Glasgow Regionwatch piece.
I know that the Greens want to do as well as possible, and I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t coorie up to Labour or to the SNP if they think it’s the best strategy for them, but surely trying to do both at once isn’t wise?
#7 by James on April 17, 2011 - 3:03 am
Those are separate questions, though. Jeff’s suggesting that in the North East there’ll be nae regionals for the SNP, just as there never are for Labour in Glasgow, West, Central, and South. For SNP NE voters, if they can’t have another SNP MSP off the list, then voting SNP is no better than abstaining. Same applies to Labour folk in those other four regions. It’s not about what the Greens want, it’s about what the voters want. I suspect in the North East that’ll be the Tories for a lot of SNP constituency voters, but for others it will be the Greens.
#8 by Ali Miller on April 17, 2011 - 10:39 am
I don’t what your basing that suspicion on, but as an SNP voter and member, and friend of other SNP voters, the idea that the Tories would be our second choice is entirely abhorrent.
Anyway, I doubt the SNP will win Aberdeen Central or Aberdeenshire West so hopefuly all SNP voters will sote SNP on both ballots.
#9 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:20 pm
I think Aberdeen Central will be very close, after all Lewis has been a good constituency MSP for 8 years now – but the sense I get from Aberdeenshire West (if the Lib Dems there are anything like the Lib Dem voters in Angus North) is that they are deserting the party. The question is where are they going?
Here we are finding a lot of them coming over to us-either as former Labour voters, or as first time Labour voters. Some of them are going over to the SNP, but not many here-the sense that this is an SNP shoe-in probably affects that.
In Aberdeenshire West, they may be going over the SNP in greater numbers – as that is the best way to “punish” the Lib Dem candidate.
Some are just not going to vote at all.
#10 by Colin on April 17, 2011 - 5:04 am
Jeff’s suggestion seems fair to me. Even from a tactical point of view, you’re more likely to deny Labour a seat in the NE by voting Green on the list rather than SNP.
#11 by Alexander Belic on April 17, 2011 - 1:56 pm
Lets say it works perfectly and the 2 NE Labour MSPs become 2 Green MSPs. If the Greens then enter coalition with Labour (as it has also worked well in Glasgow, West, Central and South where Labour voters have shut out SNP MSPs on the list. Then what difference does it make. I don’t have a problem with the Greens keeping their options open and saying they are prepared to work with either of the main parties, but to then campaign to both that a vote for them will help keep the other out is bound to cause them problems.
#12 by Colin on April 18, 2011 - 12:10 am
If the Greens enter coalition with Labour, what difference does it make? Well, firstly, I see no reason to assume that’s going to happen. Secondly, if such a coalition were formed, I’d prefer as high a Green-to-Labour ratio as possible. I think most SNP folk would.
#13 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 6:42 am
I don’t see why such a strategy isn’t wise. Rememer the Greens aren’t just trying to win a seat here and there, there is an element of survival to this election. 7% nationally could mean 7 MSPs, 5% nationally could mean 0 MSPs. If a different bit of tactical voting in different regions is what it takes to getthe former then I don’t see the problem. After all, the Greens are not promising different things in different regions (the old Lib Dem trick) so there’s no foul play at play that I can see.
I suppose I should remember that not everyone shares my preferred result of an SNP-Green coalition so don’t always appreciate that the interchange of votes between the two parties is not as natural as I often think.
#14 by Alexander Belic on April 17, 2011 - 2:08 pm
If the Greens tell Labour voters in Glasgow, Central, West & South to vote for them to keep the SNP off the list, and tell voters in the NE (and perhaps H&I) to vote for them to keep Labour off the list then they are promising different things to different people. Either an SNP-Green coalition (which I’d be keen on myself) with MSPs who were elected on a “keep the SNP out” ticket in Glasgow et al or a Lab-Green coalition with MSPs who were elected on a “keep Labour out” ticket in the NE.
If the strategy is successful, there are more SNP list seats in the central belt for the Greens to take than Labour seats in the North, and I think it increases Labour’s chances of being the largest party.
Pingback: Muckle Eck's Big Mo « The Joe Lake Blog The Joe Lake Blog
#15 by Brian on April 17, 2011 - 6:00 am
Whatever voting strategy it takes to deny list seats to Labour is the one that I think everyone should support. My only hesitation is that the comments made during the campaign by Patrick Harvie seem to indicate support for Labour post election. If the Greens want SNP support then they need to get that situation clarified. Otherwise many will see a Green vote as a vote for Labour and go elsewhere. After all we know a vote for the Tories is not a vote for Labour.
#16 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 6:13 am
Of either party, I find it very difficult to picture an anti-nuclear Green vote as being a de facto pro-nuclear Labour vote. Tactical voting is not necessarily about coalitions either, 1 more Green and 1 less Labour (as pro-SNP tactical voting in North East looks likely to result in) gives the SNP one extra vote over Labour when deciding on a First Minister (assuming Green abstentions).
And anyway, I personally can only see Green MSPs backing the party with the 100% renewables drive.
Where did this ‘vote Green, get Red’ come from anyway? Just because a poll once suggested Labour + Green = 65, that doesn’t mean either party is actively working towards such a result. I find it all rather odd to be honest.
#17 by James on April 17, 2011 - 8:40 am
New coal and either new nuclear or life extension – these are red line issues for us. The SNP are better on the latter, although they backed an extension to Hunterston B, and Labour are better on the former, opposing Hunterston (coal).
#18 by Aidan Skinner on April 17, 2011 - 9:23 pm
How do you feel about coal life extension? Isn’t it a more imminent existential threat?
(Fusion FTW, etc. etc.)
#19 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Jeff,
The “Vote Green, get Red” mantra came straight out of SNP HQ! The co-ordinated thinking of the cybernats was something to behold! I usually only see it when Tory central office wants to get something out there.
#20 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:22 pm
You’ll not be surprised that I think the exact opposite. Thats why I am often disappointed by the “we must stop Labour” strategy which seems to be what everyone has to consider.
Whatever happened to voting for what YOU want, instead of what someone tells you that you dont want?
#21 by James on April 17, 2011 - 8:19 am
The worst result for Scotland, a potential five year tragedy, is for either Labour or the SNP, whoever comes out on top, to be able to make 65 easily only with the Tories. Whichever of them it applies to, they’ll be beholden to the most reactionary force in Scotland.
Actually, the worst worst is Jeff’s second scenario. What kind of price would they be able to extract if they single-handedly could deliver the FM-ship? It would be the closest Scotland would ever come to Tories running the show at every level and I would be in total despair.
#22 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:02 am
Well, I’m not signed up to the notion that Scotland would fall to pieces if the Tories had a say in who would be FM or (gasp!) they actually formed a coalition somehow. I appreciate that there is a convenient, pragmatic bit of (dare I say it? Oh go on) scaremongering to be had from but, at the end of the day, this is democracy in action and if Lib Dems + Greens can’t outscore the Tories then I don’t think you get to say, after the polls are counted, that it’s bad for Scotland. For you yes, for me a little less so and for Malc, well the closet Tory’d be delighted!
#23 by James on April 17, 2011 - 9:17 am
Oh, I know it’s democratic, I wouldn’t be calling for a coup. But the less influence they have on policy the better as far as I’m concerned. Also, Malc’s gonna love you.
#24 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 3:24 pm
It’s apparently out in the open now(!).
For the record (not that anyone ever reads a rebuttal/ correction) I’m not really a closet Tory. I’ll fully admit to being impressed with what the Tories brought to the table for the last 4 years – and most especially, the manner in which they did so. Constructive criticism – its how our politics was supposed to work (Labour – take note). And also, I’m with them on student finance, because a) I work in a university and b) think government can’t spend its money on everything and we should prioritise the essential over the desirable. Also because it might mean there are still universities which aren’t bankrupt when I’m looking for a job.
If that makes me a closet Tory…
*ouch, ma heid*
#25 by Allan on April 17, 2011 - 5:49 pm
Ah, but Labour would be able to say vote SNP & get Tory. You don’t really understand the hatred for that party that still resides in an awful lot of the West Coast of Scotland (and it does not matter that the Tories over the last 4 years have behaved like the pragmatists they were pre-Thatcher). There’s already a Labour councillor here in Paisley saying that Derek MacKay thinks the Tory led cuts are “Just about right” (of course if he did say that, I’ll stand corrected).
I can just see Iain Gray’s next campaign poster now…
#26 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 6:27 pm
I understand it exists and I understand that it isn’t likely to change (so to that extent, I understand the hatred for the Tories in West). But what I don’t understand is the mentality. Writing off a party for something that they did 20+ years ago… where’s the forward thinking in that?
Incidentally, how do you equate my saying that I’ve been impressed with the Tories and their constructive attitude with my not understanding the hatred of them? That’s like saying I’ve been impressed with Celtic’s form recently and I don’t understand why Rangers fans just can’t get along with them. The two concepts are related, but they aren’t connected.
#27 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:30 pm
Bear in mind, when a lot of people see tories – they see David Cameron et al. Now that might not be fair in a Holyrood context, but they are the guys who get all the headlines.
And I dont think Dave is the sort of person who goes down well in Glasgow.
#28 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 8:57 pm
I’m not suggesting an SNP-Tory coalition at all (see previous discussions). I’m simply saying that an SNP minority with Tory support would be more stable than anything else we’re likely to see.
#29 by Allan on April 17, 2011 - 7:48 pm
Malc.
It’s was more a reaction to the possibility of SNP going into coalition with the Tories. Yep that was 13 years ago now (& BTW the legacy of Thatch still remains, we see it in the “Lazy Poor” – people who would rather sit on the dole than work because they don’t know any better, people who 3 generations back would have been working in the heavy industries written off by Thach). I agree, where is the forward thinking, especially as the heir to Thatch was Blair who was voted in by many unthinking Scots & it was New Labour appropriation of Thacherite ecconomics that led us to where we are with the debt and the collapse of (lightly regulated) banks.
Yep, the Tories have had a good 4 years as a constructive opposition (yes, memo to Labour, it is allowed). I don’t think it is enough to repair their shattered public image.
BTW, I have my first piece of election literature from the Tories, blog should be up this week!
#30 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 8:59 pm
I didn’t suggest a coalition. But as I’ve said previously, I think SNP minority with Tory support is likely to prove stable and advantageous to both (at least in the short term). But it might kick both of them where it hurts when the next election (2015) comes around – though it doesn’t seem to be having an impact this time around.
#31 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:29 pm
Malc,
I’m the first to admit that Labour in Holyrood did vote against more often than it should have done. The last budget was a case in point.
However, this is not a Labour trait.
In Angus, after the SNP had controlled the council since the year dot, and they thought they had a divine right to govern (sound familiar?) they have gone into a sulk and opposed absolutely everything the Angus Alliance (Ind-Con-Lab-LD) do. Including renewables (take note green voters in Angus). Knee jerk opposition just for the sake of opposing (sound familiar). The SNP are not as white as they like to portray themselves.
#32 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 8:55 pm
I haven’t ever made the case that the SNP are whiter than white here – I think you are mistaking me for a cybernat.
And I’m not condoning that behaviour – but I think what Labour have done at Holyrood is much more visible than what a council opposition has done. Just saying.
#33 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 9:38 pm
I’m not – but once an idea gains traction, it becomes the accepted reality. The SNP have been saying for ages that Labour opposing everything is strange and unusual and wrong.
I am saying it is not strange, not unusual, and if it is wrong, the SNP are just as guilty.
I take your point about a council opposition being less visible than Holyrood, but surely since the charge against Labour’s opposition is on a point of principle, its the principle of knee-jerk opposition thats the point?
#34 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 9:49 pm
Yes – I agree to an extent. But you’ve used 1 example of 1 council to say that its not unusual – if you have more examples, I’d take your point further!
But even if its not strange or unusual, don’t you think – regardless of which party is involved – that it is bad politics, not constructive and, well, just wrong?
#35 by JPJ2 on April 17, 2011 - 9:07 am
I have not been able to trust the Greens to side with the SNP since Patrick Harvie was outmanoevred by John Swinney a couple of budgets back when Harvie thought he had the SNP over a barrel.
Patrick Harvie since then has seemed to me to be always more likely tro have a dig at the SNP rather than at Labour. For that reason I would strongly advise SNP voters in the North East as well as elsewhere to vote SNP on both constituency and list. It is, after all, not certain that no SNP candidate will be elected on the list even in the North East.
Don’t forget-how many LibDem voters from last year expected the LibDems to prop up the Tories? If you want an SNP government the safest bet is to vote for one-TWICE
#36 by James on April 17, 2011 - 9:16 am
I doubt that John would describe that scenario the way you did. I felt he was working in good faith to find an agreement before it got sabotaged elsewhere. Unless you were in the talks too and remember it differently.
#37 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 12:57 pm
James – out of interest, how do you think the prospect of agreement was sabotaged, and by whom?
#38 by James on April 17, 2011 - 1:02 pm
The process was taken out of John’s hands, and the understanding John (and Bruce) had that the principle of free and universal was the crucial thing to us was lost. Pretty confident it would have worked if it had been up to them.
#39 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Cheers.
#40 by Daniel J on April 17, 2011 - 9:30 am
If you’re the party of government, making the decision, you have to expect more criticism.
#41 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:53 am
Yeah, I don’t think that stacks up with the true version of events but you’re spot on that Patrick Harvie has an image problem. He does, rightly or wrongly, come across as a bit moany and a bit huffy. Not easy to change that perception with so little media attention I suppose. Perhaps the SoS interview today may help (I’ve not read it yet).
#42 by douglas clark on April 17, 2011 - 9:11 am
The general consensus of psephological pundits seems to be that the Greens will have circa 5/6 MSPs on the figures given. Whilst I accept that Jeff knows his stuff on tactical voting, I am not convinced that the voters have his nuance!
Which is why I keep saying vote SNP for both constituency and list. You can, you’re allowed to.
Incidentally, where is the policy difference between the Greens and the SNP? Renewable electricity by 2020 can’t, by definition, include coal.
#43 by James on April 17, 2011 - 9:15 am
Salmond did say in the manifesto launch that we’d meet our own needs from renewables and use electricity from coal for export. I think that’s a fair paraphrase.
#44 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:58 am
Well, a policy per a manifesto is not the same as the delivered result. The SNP has only stuck to 2007 targets because the Opposition parties wouldn’t let the Government dilute them. So I would argue that similar renewable policies is a good reason for an SnP/Grn link up because Harvie and his team would keep targets on track.
As for tactical voting, I of course absolutely see where you’re coming from. I guess it depends on how close matters are between the SNP and Labour come May 5th. The bigger the lead for the Nats, the more comfortable they should feel tactically voting to keep Labour frozen out.
#45 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:34 pm
On the matter of the targets, I would like to remind you which party helped to force the SNP to change their targets?
Now (nuclear aside, as there ARE greens in favour of it) which party do YOU think is more committed to reducing carbon emissions?
A meaningless pledge with no detail on how this heroic, if not impossible target is to be acheived does not show commitment. It shows someone who doesnt plan to be around in 2020 when its not met.
#46 by Daniel J on April 17, 2011 - 9:25 am
Greens posted this today: http://t.co/4GgpoQg, their red lines for after the election.
I’ve been mumbling about the NE becoming the SNPs Glasgow for a wee while now. You don’t get the best response on Twitter when you suggest that in quite a few places the best thing for SNPers is to 2nd Vote Green…
#47 by JPJ2 on April 17, 2011 - 9:53 am
re #16
“Unless you were in the talks too and remember it differently.”
I don’t think I have imagined that Patrick Harvie was very upset at the outcome. If you can assure me that the Greens are (still?) more favourably inclined to the SNP than to Labour I will be pleased.
I just don’t want SNP supporters waking up on 6 May to find that “second vote green” are singing the praises of the Labour Party and about to do a deal with them.
If the Greens don’t favour the SNP over Labour why on earth should an SNP voter back them??
.
#48 by James on April 17, 2011 - 11:39 am
It was intensely frustrating, not least because the SNP missed a chance to demonstrate how Scotland could go one better than Westminster. But it wasn’t John playing us. They didn’t want that outcome but forces beyond his control forced it to that point.
#49 by Doug Daniel on April 17, 2011 - 9:53 am
If the North-East really does elect 10 constituency SNP MSPs, then I’ll be chuffed to bits. However, before I consider changing my list vote to the Greens, I would have to be absolutely positive that it will be wasted if I vote SNP – just how unlikely is it that the SNP will get a NE list MSP? If 8 or 9 constituency MSPs would still leave them miles away from a list MSP, then fair enough. Otherwise, I might just wait and see how this election goes before I think about voting like it’s 1999.
#50 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Doug,
the thing is the North East has gained a constituency in this boundary review. A seat which is notionally SNP. And its THAT which makes it less likely for the SNP to gain a list MSP.
Of course, I would be pleased if you would vote Labour in Angus North to help the SNP get that list seat 🙂
#51 by douglas clark on April 17, 2011 - 9:56 am
james,
Point taken. I certainly don’t approve of that.
#52 by Paul on April 17, 2011 - 11:23 am
Malc has been accused of worse (for him). A LibDem
#53 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Quite. At least the Tories have some principles.
(cheap shot I know, but I’m a little hungover due to cheap shots last night!).
#54 by Douglas McLellan on April 17, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Question. What principles are the Lib Dems supposed to have had and now longer have?
#55 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 8:46 pm
You’re just going to shout at me again Douglas but the principle of free university education is one that has been lost.
You may say that you still hold the principle of free university education but it’s just not workable at the moment but then I would say that that undermines the very meaning of “principle”. I would then suggest that you would be on the wrong side of Charles Kennedy on this one: Asked if the tuition fees pledge should be retained, Mr Kennedy replied: “Well, I think so. I think you should do so in terms of principle.”
Somone made a good point to me last night actually; the Lib Dems were always going to win one big concession from the Conservatives in this coalition – that could’ve been on any of their key policies of cheaper public transport, the environment, no tuition fees or whatever. Clegg and his team opted for AV and, as this person put it, hell mend them.
Political will could have kept university education costs down, even kept them free as in Scotland, but that “miserable little compromise” was deemed a higher priority principle. (As if one can ever prioritise principles in the first place)
Anyway, that’s what I would say, but it was a question to Malc……..
#56 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 8:53 pm
It was a throwaway comment. But you know that. Also – see what Jeff says about the principle of free education (although its not something I agree with) and I’d argue also Proportional Representation is a principle that they had in opposition that they have diluted considerably in government. But this isn’t a thread about the Lib Dems failings. We’ve done enough of them…
#57 by Douglas McLellan on April 17, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Dont worry Jeff & Malc, it was a genuine question and I respect your answers.
In my head I have had a separation between the principles of the party (which are articulated in the preamble to the constitution) and the policies of the party that are designed to bring forward those principles. In my mind universal free education was never a ‘principle’, but instead a policy to achieve the principle of allowing people the “right to develop their talents to the full”.
Interestingly I think that some of the MPs did break at least one if not two principles when they voted for tuition fees. The first was that no-fees was a democratically voted on policy of the party and second, more damningly in my eyes, the option to abstention on fees was available thanks to the special conference. I was more vexed at that than the actually fees issue – I am with Malc on fees btw.
I dont buy what your was said on what we could have got. There is no way we would have got fee free education. The cost would have been tremendous.
#58 by Malc on April 18, 2011 - 9:58 am
I link your distinction between “principles” and “policies”. Genuinely – most folk won’t see the difference and suggest you are trying to sidestep an issue… but I agree. There is a difference.
#59 by Douglas McLellan on April 18, 2011 - 10:35 am
Cheers. I think that by noting the difference between policies and principles makes me far less likely to get exercised by changes in government or opposition parties policies than the politicians do. After all, I support evidence based policy making and if the evidence suggests that a different idea might work (or the current one isn’t) then changes should be made.
It also makes me far less likely to be passionate about a particular policy. Some people hold onto policies like comfort blankets and I can never get my head round why this is.
#60 by Daniel J on April 17, 2011 - 11:48 am
In 07′ SNP had 6 constituency MSPs and 2 list MSPs from 105,000 votes.
This year the SNP are a cert to win the new Angus seat and pretty damn likely to win Aberdeen South & NK.
That brings them up to 8 Constituency MSPs… Meaning their regional vote would be divided by 8+1. Assuming a similar share of the vote that would equal 11,667 votes, 4,000 below the threshold in for the last list seat in 2009.
Easy you say.. it’s only 3-4,000 votes to bring the SNP regional vote up to 15,000? Because of the 8 constituency seats already held 9 votes are effectively needed to increase the end result by 1.. so rather than 3,300 votes – closer to 20-30,000 additional votes could be needed. Even if the SNP win that is pretty damn unlikely you have to admit.
Whereas 5,000 votes to the Greens would guarantee you an MSP that supports the right of the people to decide on the constitutional future of Scotland and one that is truly anti-nuclear.
#61 by NoOffenceAlan on April 17, 2011 - 2:56 pm
So, from a Green perspective, if you want to minimise the competition on the NE list, you need to tactically cast your constituency votes to make the SNP lose exactly 1 FPTP seat in the NE?
The hardest for the SNP to win would seem to be Aberdeenshire West.
#62 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 3:28 pm
This looks quite familiar from our analysis… sounds reasonable. But as Richard Thomson says below – I reckon the Greens are a bit marmite in the NE, especially on Trump. Either you back them to the hilt or you’d never dream of supporting them – not much in between.
#63 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 8:38 pm
TBH, Malc, I don’t think it’s even a Marmite choice.
In Gordon at the last election, which should have been at the epicentre of any public backlash on Trump, ‘big oil’ and the AWPR, the Greens were only good for 1.5% of the poll or 750 votes – just 200 or so more than they managed in Dundee East. That was hardly surprising, as opposing investment and reduced travel times is never going to be a vote winner with folk up here, as evidenced by the fact that 48,000 others voted for candidates in support of the oil industry, the Trump development and the AWPR.
Voting Green on the list is an attractive option for a lot of SNP voters I know in the Central belt. However, given their stance on the afforementioned issues, I just don’t see why the prospect of rewarding the Greens would be an enticing one for your typical north east SNP voter.
Being against the AWPR and Trump is almost certainly worth more votes for the SGP in Portobello than it is in Peterhead…
#64 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 9:02 pm
I think had last year been a PR election and not an FPTP one you might have seen more than the 1.5% of the vote for the Greens.
That said – I agree on your final point. Opposition to Trump (certainly when I worked at the Parly) did seem to come from folk in Lothians who it wouldn’t affect at all…
#65 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:04 pm
Hi Richard, hope you’re keeping well.
Just to say, I don’t think you can gauge a pro-Green/anti-Trump factor based on a Westminster contest where thre Greens have a negligible chance of winning a seat and their candidate wasn’t linked to that decision. Two massive factors in 2011 are (1) Martin Ford has a realistic chance of winning a seat and (2) he was the very person that made this issue such a big deal by throwing out (quite reasonably) Trump’s application.
That may or may not attract a significant tranche of vote but, again, you can’t rule it out off the back of 2010.
#66 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 9:48 pm
Hi Jeff,
Doing fine, thanks. Hope London’s still treating you well.
Malc and yourself might have a point re the voting system having a propensiy to reduce the Green vote last time, alongside it being a Westminster contest. However, my point is that contrary to what James appears to believe, there wasn’t then – and still isn’t now – any great breadth or depth of support locally for opposing Trump or the AWPR.
There was probably a very good reason why Martin Ford didn’t stand for the Greens last time. Despite the fame he garnered elsewhere, he wasn’t exactly Mr Popular locally after he using his casting vote to dismiss the Trump application. Having a different candidate arguably allowed the Green case to get more of a polite hearing than might otherwise have been achieved.
Cllr Ford is an intelligent guy, and I know from a Question Time style event I attended in Turriff a couple of years ago that he speaks coherently and well. If he’s to be in with a reasonable chance, though, he needs to be able to reach beyond the Green base.
For the reasons I’ve given and because of some of the positions he’s taken, I really can’t see him doing that by winning many list votes from people voting SNP at constituency level. Definitely an interesting list to watch, though I’d still bank on the SNP getting at least one list member.
#67 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:54 pm
Thanks Richard, to be fair, I can’t imagine many people going into a polling booth in May thinking ‘this’ll show you Trump’ but, then, Martin Ford isn’t a single issue candidate either so there might be a not-so-discernible impact there that isn’t black and white.
I don’t know much about the local issues but name recognition alone should at least help the Green cause in the area. Fine, even if 80% of people thought Martin Ford made the wrong decision (I don’t think he did, he was simply applying the rules before him, “the right decision for the right reasons” one could say) but that still leaves a higher proportion of people than voted Green last time, by some margin.
I’m not saying that 20% of people now plan to vote Green but, in an area where every little helps for SGP, I think they picked the right candidate.
#68 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 9:56 pm
From what I hear (parents in law live in the same town as you Richard, I think) the Green candidate last time in 2010 wasn’t at all impressive. I imagine if it had been Martin Ford, he’d have polled considerably more. I still get the feeling that if you ARE anti-Trump, you’d support him, and if you were for it, you’d still be pretty annoyed at him (so, still on my Marmite theory!) and wouldn’t vote for him. But I do think that PR will make a difference.
#69 by Daniel J on April 18, 2011 - 9:49 am
Like I said good luck with the SNP getting a list seat, if the Greens don’t make it probably means Labour will pick up a 4th, the Tories a 3rd or the Liberal Democrats a 2nd (or 1st depending how the constituencies go)
#70 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Given their very vocal stance on a number of projects in the North East and their hostility to the oil and gas industry, I think the Greens will struggle to find many votes north of Dundee, never mind from people who are habitual SNP supporters. And the further up the A90 you go, the tougher its going to get.
#71 by James on April 17, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Except that a substantial minority, way more than the Greens have ever polled in the North East, are against Trump, against the AWPR, and against the absolute kow-towing to business, not just the oil industry, that’s been the hallmark of this administration and its predecessors alike. They have only the Greens to vote for, and there are thousands and thousands of them..
#72 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:38 pm
Theres also the SNP-led project to tarmac over Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen. Theres a lot of strength of feeling over that – and while i think Labour is split over the issue (I know Greg in Aberdeen S & Kincardine is against), the Greens are 100% against.
#73 by Richard Thomson on April 17, 2011 - 1:14 pm
There’s undoubtedly a substantial minority, but there’s not too many of them in the North East. And while that sort of rhetoric probably goes down a storm amongst the faithful, you’ll need to work on your pitch a bit over the next 3 weeks if that’s how you’re planning to sell it to voters north of Aberdeen 🙂
#74 by aonghas on April 17, 2011 - 1:25 pm
100% by 2020 seems… pie-in-the-sky, to be polite.
Think of all that spending on expensive and unreliable electricity that could be directed more usefully… And let’s not pretend that spending on subsidised energy will yield an actual net increase in jobs. Anyway, I’m willing to bet that if the SNP get their way, we’ll still be relying on majority carbon-emitting energy sources by 2020.
But meh, I’ll probably vote SNP anyway. Much as I prefer Labour’s energy policies, I wouldn’t vote for them.
#75 by mav on April 17, 2011 - 2:24 pm
I’d like to register my disagreement with the very idea that a one-off opinion poll, which may or may not be accurate, should be game-changing. Opinion polls should reflect the ‘game’ not influence or change it.
#76 by Malc on April 17, 2011 - 3:31 pm
Objection noted… but these things are always likely to influence as well as reflect – its the nature of the game. I don’t like it either.
Pingback: New poll predicts SNP will take Linlithgow and Almond Valley | Set In Darkness
#77 by Douglas McLellan on April 17, 2011 - 2:55 pm
I wonder how the national polls affect the local tight results though. 2010, from a poll perspective had the Lib Dems in line to get their highest ever GE result but it was that way on the ground in tight seats.
I also think that the this poll did not ask about intention to actually go out and vote. Given the hatred of Lib Dems (and I presume Tories) on some doorsteps do you not think that the Lib Dem (and Tory) numbers are more likely to be a lot firmer than for the other parties?
#78 by Daniel J on April 17, 2011 - 3:37 pm
One thing I would say is that from looking at the SPICE reports from the last 2 elections, if you average out the opinion polls they have been pretty accurate.
#79 by Roger Mullin on April 17, 2011 - 3:26 pm
I am very dubious about extrapolating polls down to individual constituency level, particularly for marginal seats. Swings at individual constituency level can vary by quite a bit. Do you ascribe any margins of error?
#80 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on April 17, 2011 - 5:44 pm
so how does Jeff explain Labour support at 46% to the snps 26%
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-st-results-05-170411.pdf
#81 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:22 pm
Erm, quite easily:
(1) It’s a Westminster poll
(2) It is a small sample size
(3) SNP is lumped in the ‘Other’ category
#82 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 6:41 pm
One thing I dont think has been commented on here, or elsewhere, is the large number of “others” int he constituency vote.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but in virtually every constituency, there wont be any “others” to vote for. So where do those votes go?
Using my spreadsheet, if they go SNP, it doesnt really help them at all (i think a net gain of 1). But if they go to Labour, then the seat totals magically flip over – Labour on 55, SNP on 49. That must be all those tight SNP wins Jeff was talking about. But those votes have to go somewhere.
#83 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:00 pm
Good point, I never considered that at all. The ‘Others’ constituency vote in 2007 totalled 2.1% and the Others in this poll is 4%. That’s only a 1.9% difference so taking all of that 4% onto Labour’s share of the vote (as I assume you have done) doesn’t actually tell us very much from what I can see, but I take your point that there’s probably a sizeable ‘undecided’ pool out there to be fought for. The fairest distribution of such votes is along the same split as this poll is suggesting though surely? In the absence of any other reasonable assumptions.
There is a distinct possibility that they just won’t vote of course.
#84 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 9:35 pm
That seems quite high figure for others? The figure I’ve been using in my spreadsheet is 0.64% – happy to be corrected but do you have a source for that?
Even if they do split 50:50, as I said it seems not to help the SNP, whilst boosting Labour in terms of seats.
#85 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 9:58 pm
Sure
Greens – 0.2%
Inds – 1.2%
SCCUP – 0.1%
Christian – 0.2%
SSP/Scottish Voice/Save St John’s/8 others – ~0.4%
(Source is Wikipedia, as always)
#86 by John Ruddy on April 17, 2011 - 11:07 pm
OK – assuming Wikipedia is accurate – I’ll have to tweak my spreadsheet!
#87 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 11:25 pm
Brilliant. “Assuming Wikipedia is accurate” (because my spreadsheet might be more reliable?)
I suspect tweaking would be a good idea.
backup source – http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/elections/2007/documents/Table2.pdf
#88 by John Ruddy on April 18, 2011 - 7:38 am
Well, theres nothing stopping me going in to change the result of the 2007 election is there 😉
#89 by Malc on April 18, 2011 - 8:43 am
How about your conscience? 🙂
Incidentally, I use Wikipedia for that too, since I think they present it better than elsewhere.
#90 by Colin on April 17, 2011 - 11:39 pm
I just heard mentioned in the (very boring) economy debate that the Greens’ Land Value Tax will require the completion or near completion of the Land Register.
I have looked on-line (maybe not hard enough) to find out exactly how they will determine the value of the land and have been unable to find this.
I’m assuming, from Harvie’s words that this will be done by the some reference to the Land Register.
Now, as a student of Scots law I’m finding it hard to understand how on earth this can possibly be brought into effect by 2012 as was mooted in the debate. The Land Register, as he rightly pointed out, is 60% complete in terms of the number of titles in the register. However, the Land Register was first introduced in 1979! It was finally rolled out into all districts of Scotland by 2003. So, if we accept only the 2003 figure that means we have reached 60% completion of the register in 8 years. How he intends to complete it in one year I have no idea. Furthermore, 80% of the land area of Scotland is not on the register (all the un-registered land is of course registered on the Register of Sasines) as there are some very old deeds which have not been conveyed and probably wont be conveyed for hundreds of years.
If anyone, especially a Green supporter, could enlighten me on these aspects of LVT I would be grateful!
#91 by Jeff on April 17, 2011 - 11:48 pm
It’s not for me to say as a non-member but I would have thought that, given the explicit purpose, reasonable (prudent) assumptions and estimations could be used to attain a useful register that could be used until ‘the’ Land Register is 100% complete.
A bit like sampling the census as opposed to a full census (would be more accurate with sampling, according to the West Wing at least)
#92 by Colin on April 18, 2011 - 12:29 am
Then we might have a system which would cost an arm and a leg to implement and that’s ignoring the number of challenges by people who would think their property was not as valuable as the tax said it was. My parent’s house, for example, is still on the Register of Sasines and they have no plan to sell anytime soon. Would a government official visit to create a plan of their home rather than have it done then the property was conveyed at no expense to the taxpayer?
Once the Land Register is complete, I agree, LVT could be a very interesting option, but until it is done (which won’t be for many years, if not decades) it seems – as far as I can see anyway – a very expensive and intrusive option.
#93 by Jeff on April 18, 2011 - 11:32 am
I don’t see how estimating/sampling the remaining properties would “cost an arm and a leg”. I’m not saying Government visits would be necessary at all – just a room of statisticians and surveyors (?) getting together and carving up the rest of the book in as fair and prudent a way as possible.
Should take a couple of months at not very much cost. Inaccurate, yes, but useful and, arguably, a large improvement on Council Tax.
I’m not saying this is the SGP plan of course, just saying it’s not a big obstacle to finding ‘a’ solution.
#94 by Colin on April 18, 2011 - 12:41 pm
But with estimates you get challenges – especially when you consider that 80% of land area not yet registered is agricultural land and estates.
Boundary disputes have been very common with the transition of land to the Land Register (which is to be expected and is completely understandable, what with plans being put into the title deeds for the first time). If people end up getting taxed for either land they do not own or land that doesn’t belong to them there may be many challenges, which would be expensive.
Also, the problem with estimates is that they tend to have a bit of arbitrariness in them. Admittedly, the council tax has arbitrary land values, but these arbitary values apply equally to everyone and are not specific to the individual property, which is a big difference.
As for ‘visits’ how else would the statisticians be able to determine who owns what land? Land in the register of sasines (80% of land) is almost entirely without plans. Some even only have single sentence descriptions of the land in the title deeds. Without at least some detail of who owns what how would a room of statisticians be able to determine who pays what if they can only have accurate details of 60% of the land that is currently on the Land Register.
#95 by Jeff on April 18, 2011 - 1:19 pm
Yes, you would get challenges and that is why prudence would have to be exercised but, at the end of the day, if LVT on a sampling basis was agreed by Parliament then we’d have to abide by that. The Government leaving itself vulnerable to legal attack (and compensation) is definitely a key conisderation but not, for me, a reason to not persevere. There are problems with all forms of local taxations and it is very much the ‘least worst’ solution that wins through.
For visits; I don’t see how a mailshot with a mandatory requirement to fill in who owns the property can’t work. A bit like the census. Anyone who lives or works in Scotland either knows, or has the means to find out, who owns the property. Going door to door is an inefficient way of solving what I still believe is only a minor challenge.
Anyway, i’m just spitballing here; (I don’t know what register of sasines is for example). I think an agreement in principle between a majority of MSPs would be necessary before the real detail had to be looked at. Sadly I don’t see that agreenemnt happening in reality, though a dream scenario of an SNP/Green coalition could, could deliver it. Maybe…
#96 by Douglas McLellan on April 18, 2011 - 1:13 am
The basis for the Greens LVT policy is this report by Andy Wightman.
The bit about how much has been done to complete the Land Register is on page 11. And you are correct. It is nowhere near complete. Furthermore, there is no record in Scotland of what each parcel of land is actually used for.
Neither of these two problems are insurmountable but the neither the report or the Scottish Green Party has told us how much it will cost to implement or even get all the data required for it to be implemented.
Given one of the objections to a LIT is the cost of setting it up, I would like to see a costing of how much it would cost to get up an LVT system up and running by 2012.
#97 by Colin on April 18, 2011 - 10:33 am
Thanks for that. Just what I was looking for. You are correct however, these proposals are sadly very quiet on a lot of these issues.
I would like to see costings of implementation, but part of me fears that the reason they haven’t been mentioned is because they will be quite high – maybe even higher than LIT.
For the record, however, I still firmly believe both LIT and LVT are better than the current set up. I suspect that if a system like council tax was one of the taxes being mooted for implementation at the moment that even its stauchest current defenders would be attacking it as an unfair system.
#98 by Douglas McLellan on April 18, 2011 - 11:08 am
I am just impressed that I managed to get a link done properly in html for the first time on this blog!
I am in favour of LVT for commercial/business land. I think that it has a lot of merits to prevent, or at least tax, problem business practices like land-banking. Aside from the cost of implementation, which we havent been told, I dont like LVT for a variety of reasons explained elsewhere on the Better Nation Blog.
I really do prefer LIT but can see the reason for delaying implementation in this parliament.
#99 by Paul on April 18, 2011 - 11:29 am
Douglas, you could link directly to your comment too, like so. And thanks for pointing to this discussion as I missed it earlier
#100 by Stuart on April 18, 2011 - 6:28 am
Getting back to the poll, does anyone have details/breakdown of the SoS poll?
#101 by CassiusClaymore on April 18, 2011 - 2:12 pm
LVT will simply lead to the following:-
1. Suburban citizen has large garden. Not unusual.
2. Cash-strapped council, struggling to fund all their pointless social engineering and related non-jobs, give him planning consent to build another house in the garden, without him asking, to drive a higher valuation of his property and thus raise their LVT revenues.
3. Citizen, faced with doubled LVT bill (probably 6-8 times as much as his old council tax, if he lives in an Edinburgh suburb) gives in, builds a house and sells it off.
Lo and behold, less green space and more urbanisation. Is this what the Greens really want?
Incidentally, it is laughable to say that Land Registration can be accelerated so as to be completed by 2015. If my house is on the Register of Sasines, and I never sell it, then it will not be on the LR until it is transferred after my death. It’s not about the amount of resource at the Land Register – it’s about the triggers for first (land) registration.
Finally, the example of Central Park cited in Andy Wightman’s report is surely an example of tax increment financing rather than LVT?
CC