The Scotsman got YouGov to ask a lot of questions last weekend, and one on coalition partners went largely unnoticed. The results are on page 4 of this pdf – it’s the same poll which put the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems for the first time.
The respondents first got a forced choice between Labour and the SNP, which showed – SNP 44%, Labour 42%, Don’t know 13%. As those who watch the cybernats’ attempts to bait me on Twitter know, I’m firmly in the third group.
Anyway, the next question asked people if their preferred party did not win enough seats to govern on their own, which other party would be your preferred coalition partners, with these overall results:
Minority: 20%
Lib Dem: 16%
Green: 14%
Tory: 13%
Labour: 13%
SNP: 13%
Other: 3%
D/K: 8%
It seems likely that the relatively stable experience of the 2007-2011 session has made minority more popular, although the SNP having one party they could rely on throughout every Budget vote is not a luxury a Labour minority administration could expect.
Given that an outright majority is as likely as a Lib Dem surge, it’s pleasing from a Green perspective to see a seventh of punters prepared to see us in office, if a bit surprising to see the Lib Dems come out marginally ahead there. Only 5% of this sample were voting Lib Dem, but more than three times that have them as their preferred minority partner. They may be too toxic to vote for, but there’s presumably enough residual sympathy to give them the equivalent of a higher ranking under STV. Alternatively, if you’re a die-hard big-party supporter who doesn’t pay too much attention to politics, they perhaps just look like the least worst of the parties you’re familiar with.
Anyway, this is just idle speculation. The real, if slim, purpose of this post is the party-by-party preferences at the bottom of that page.
The symmetry is extraordinary. 11% of Scots are Labour voters who would prefer a SNP Deputy First Minister, and 11% vice versa. 7% each are Labour or SNP voters who would prefer Tavish as DFM, and 6% each are Labour and SNP voters who’d put Patrick into that position.
In one sense it makes sense: on recent form there is little by way of a left-right ideological dividing line between Labour and the SNP. There’s only one question which divides them here: those who want Salmond to stay on as FM are twice as likely as Gray’s supporters to want to see Annabel take a Ministerial Mondeo. Just a straw in the wind, and 8% to 4% is barely outside the margin of error, but still perhaps reflective of that close working relationship the SNP and the Tories have had throughout this session.
#1 by The Burd on April 3, 2011 - 7:57 pm
I wondered if the sudden preference for minority government was also influenced by the experiences of the coalition at Westminster with what many Scots might think of as unholy bedfellows?
I think the 2nd place preference for the Greens is good news and certainly the shift towards them on the regional vote augurs well. Far be it for me to offer advice, but I’m going to anyway, Scottish voters are saying they’d like the Greens to be given a shot at being in government (or at least a substantial minority are). If they get the chance, the SGP might wish to consider this in its deliberations?
#2 by danny1995 on April 3, 2011 - 7:58 pm
The real question is, if Labour emerge as the largest party, will the SNP be willing to work with the Tories, or will they go back into opposition?
#3 by Colin on April 3, 2011 - 8:55 pm
I’d be amazed if the second-largest party concocts any deals to shut the largest out of office. The next five years are going to be difficult enough for whomever forms the administration without that hanging round their necks.
#4 by Doug Daniel on April 3, 2011 - 8:30 pm
Your final sentence there seems ever so slightly loaded, but there are certainly two things that we can say about the past four years: 1) minority government is very workable, at least until the opposition start opposing for opposition’s sake, and 2) surprisingly, the Tories are the most mature of the three Westminster opposition parties. If the SNP are the largest party after the election, it’ll be interesting to see if the Lib Dems – almost certainly under new leadership – will be a bit easier to work with this time round, or if they’ll continue sulking. Although if their vote really does collapse as bad as we all think, then they might be virtually insignificant.
I don’t think the SNP and Tories could really be said to have had a “close working relationship” though James – they may have been the only party that consistently used the budget process effectively to negotiate small wins for themselves (or at least to allow them to claim that they had), but over those four years they still voted against the SNP on significant issues like the trams, graduate endowment fees and minimum alcohol pricing, as well as being vocally opposed to replacing council tax with LIT and having an independence referendum.
Partners in a “close working relationship” don’t vote against more things than they vote for – in fact, they would probably abstain rather than vote against – so let’s not go down the tired old “Tartan Tories” path. It’s nae the 1980s, even if David Cameron is making it seem like it is, and the SNP’s constitution is not about to be changed any time soon to allow them to go into coalition with the Tories.
#5 by The Burd on April 3, 2011 - 8:33 pm
#2 Just as the SNP had the moral right to have a chance to govern as the largest party in 2007, I think Labour would have to be given the same chance. Though there would be nothing to prevent a rearguard action – except opprobrium from every quarter! The SNP has it as policy, no formal truck with the Tories so suspect they would at least cast around for other more suitable partners if none could be found, would go back to opposition and bide their time…
#6 by Doug Daniel on April 3, 2011 - 9:29 pm
This is where it’ll get interesting. Salmond became FM thanks to the Greens supporting him and the Tories and Lib Dems abstaining. But if Iain Gray tries to become FM, presumably the SNP would vote against, the Greens for, and the Lib Dems abstain. So the balance of power would be left with the Tories – surely the Tories can’t allow Labour to get in power in Scotland? They may hate independence, but the Tories’ number one concern is Westminster, and therefore their number one enemy is Labour. That would leave the way open for the SNP to try and form a government, which would just require backing from the Tories, even if all the non-Labour parties voted against.
Hmmm, this could be the most fun election yet…
#7 by Jeff on April 3, 2011 - 9:39 pm
I agree Doug, one party is bound to be left with a tricky decision on its hands and it may well be Goldie. Mind you, how would Labour handle Iain Gray only being made FM on the back of Tory votes even if Annabel found a way to do it? (which I think she would as any opportunity for relevance in Scotland the Tories find they surely must take)
Incidentally, I personally can only see the Greens voting for Iain Gray as First Minister if Labour is the largest party and a lot of negotiating has taken place which, the polls going as they are, looks increasingly unliklely. I can see the SNP and Greens being more agreeable coalition partners.
I’m not buying into this ‘Scotsman comment pages’ babble of ‘the Greens are propping up Labour’ and, to be honest, don’t even know where it came from.
#8 by Doug Daniel on April 3, 2011 - 10:49 pm
I suspect it came from the simple fact that the Greens haven’t ruled out a coalition with Labour (or anyone else), even though Labour’s pro-nuclear stance makes them (in the eyes of us SNP supporters, anyway) even less green than the SNP. Things like the Daily Record talking up a Labour-Greens political marriage in January and that poll commissioned by the Greens showing Labour support back in the 40% region in February haven’t helped. Also, the fact that the Greens and Labour were the only parties to vote against the budget didn’t help – Labour doing so despite getting what they’d asked for, and the Greens not even making it that far. Whatever it is, the only way to get rid of it would be for the Greens to state that they wouldn’t form a coalition with Labour, but then why should they be the only party to do so?
I just hope the polls are taking us in the right direction, so that the question of whether Iain Gray would have become FM or not becomes purely speculative. I’d genuinely love to see an SNP-Greens coalition – it’d make me feel like Scotland was becoming that little bit more like a proper European democracy, and distancing itself from the Westminster way of things. Of course, the only reason I say that is because the Greens in Germany have been coalition partners in the past, and I think Germany is great.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on April 4, 2011 - 7:42 am
I really cant see how the Greens can go into coalition. Rightly or wrongly they have been vocal critics of the Lib Dems in the Westminster Coalition and how aspects of the Lib Dem manifesto have been treated by the Westminster Gov.
Two of the three Green pledges (tax rises & free home insulation for all) would be hard for any other party to agree to (although free insulation could be extended from the vulnerable older people/other vulnerable groups that are eligible for it now). I would go as far as saying that the tax rises would not be agreed to at all. The SNP is still committed to the new Forth Road crossing, can the Greens be involved with a party that will build that bridge? Labour are pro-Trident, pro-nuclear power etc. Can the Greens be in a coalition with a party that backs that? And both parties like road building. What about the rest of the Green Party manifesto?
Now, without a major rewrite of the SNP or Labour Manifestos how can the Greens join a coalition with them – given their belief in a ‘no compromise’ that the Lib Dems should have taken.
Of course I could be wrong and the SNP or Labour will be very accommodating and meet Green party manifesto commitments.
#10 by Alexander Belic on April 4, 2011 - 5:06 am
“Only 5% of this sample were voting Lib Dem, but more than three times that have them as their preferred minority partner.”
I think the Greens should take some heart from that, if I were a hard-line Labourite or uncompromising Nationalist I’d probably pick the LDs as coalition partners as they’ve shown themselves to be fairly pliant in coalition, going along with whatever the big boys ask for in exchange for very few concessions in the grand scheme of things, while the Greens being a more principled sort would demand larger concessions.
“There’s only one question which divides them here: those who want Salmond to stay on as FM are twice as likely as Gray’s supporters to want to see Annabel take a Ministerial Mondeo.
As it was a forced choice between Labour & SNP in the first instance, I suspect the difference between SNP/Tory and Lab/Tory support stems from voters whose 1st preference is Tory. Goldie herself said she’d be voting for Salmond to take back the keys to Bute House over Gray in the chamber, in full knowledge that the SNP constitution would prevent her from getting a portfolio out of it.
#11 by Una on April 4, 2011 - 7:34 am
I wonder if I’m being accused of being an ‘ambushing cybernat’ for seeking clarity on how nuclear power would impact on any coalition deal with labour? If so it’s inaccurate, but I guess it’s one way to try and deflect and devalue a debate.
From my perspective, on a rare visit to twitterland I felt you and Patrick were being surprisingly evasive on a crucial question for voters who (like me) put non-nuclear high on their list of priorities. I’m well aware of your personal commitment to oppose nuclear, but voting green to actually achieve this will obviously bring coalition at best.
It would surely be remiss of me not to ask if it’s a red-line issue – particularly in light of the lib-dem deal at Westminster where key policy assurances were not achieved.
It’s also understandable if greens don’t have any red-line issues before coalition talks begin (as far as I recall the SNP said they left nothing off the table in 2007 but the lib dems still wouldnt join ’em) – but you could have just said so. I was disappointed you seemed to be babbling politician-speak while pretending to be clear.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always been delighted – relieved in fact – to have green voices in parliament, and have voted green more than once. Now that I live in London, I will again. But in my opinion any ‘Scotsman comment pages’ babble of the ‘Greens propping up labour’ has evolved from the tone and timbre of statements from Greens, at least while labour were ahead in the polls.
#12 by James on April 4, 2011 - 8:27 am
I certainly wouldn’t say “ambushing”, but you were one of the many people who, wilfully or not, kept asking for a clear answer long after you’d got one. I’ll put it down here just for clarity.
Greens are 100% against new nuclear power and life extension of existing plants. This distinguishes us from all the other Holyrood parties. Labour and the Tories are clearly pro-nuclear. The Lib Dems were against new plants until they got into government in London. The SNP are against new plants but in 2007 declared they were backing extending the life of Hunterston B, perhaps the ropiest of the existing nuclear plants.
We are also 100% against new fossil fuel plants in Scotland. It’s harder to tell in advance of the manifestos what the other parties’ position will be on this, but the SNP’s position is clear – they added a new coal plant at Hunterston to the National Planning Framework 2, a decision which would ram it through irrespective of local planning rules, and which is currently subject to judicial review. Labour and the Lib Dems voted against this when we put it to Parliament, although I wouldn’t say I’m terribly confident about their overall position here. Labour and the Lib Dems also voted with us for tougher climate targets when the SNP betrayed their manifesto pledges on that issue: a commitment to 3% reductions became a 0.05% reduction once Stewart Stevenson got his hands on the issue.
Back to nuclear specifically, I guarantee you Green MSPs in the next session will do every single thing they can to stop any plans for new nuclear and life extension too. I’m not sure how I could make that clearer.
The difficulty here lies elsewhere – the SNP see the whole of politics through the constitutional prism, and cannot understand why Greens don’t see it the same way, which would mean unquestioningly supporting an SNP administration no matter how abject their failures on the environment. We’re not a wee environmental ginger group for the SNP. Our priorities are social justice and sustainability: changing the constitution is just one of many means to that end. And on the issues I care most about, neither the SNP nor Labour have come anywhere near our position in recent years.
#13 by John Ruddy on April 4, 2011 - 2:24 pm
James,
I’m sure you’ll agree that I’m not an ambushing cybernat, but could I ask yuo for some clarification (I wont hold you to it). What if a party which supported nuclear power offered you a coalition, on the understanding that your MSPs could vote against any nuclear policy the Government brought forward? Would you demand other concessions? Or, if other policy aspects were more amenable would it be OK?
I will put on the record now that I would be more than happy for Labour to work in coalition with the Greens – and i say that as a pro-nuclear power person.
#14 by James on April 4, 2011 - 2:44 pm
John, the issue is building nuclear plants, not being in favour of them. Just supporting them in theory is kinda irrelevant. Let’s wait and see the manifestos. But thanks for the kind words.
#15 by Leighton on April 4, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Surely From an SNP POV the only possible coalition partners are the greens as what’s the point of entering into a formal arrangement with any of the other parties if they would oppose any referendum on Independence? The Tories remain a toxic brand here in Scotland and while yes they may have helped force the Trams on us and stopped minimum pricing by and large the supply and confidence arrangement between the 2 groups has worked well so why change it? As for the Lib Dems assuming they are in a position to form a coalition ( the polls could easily be wrong or change come May the 5th) its all about the referendum if they won’t support it the SNP will either go Green or go it along. As Labour given the Tories and the Lib Dems are in power at Westminster they will have little to no interest in sharing power with either of them unless they have too.
From the POV of the Green party I would suggest it’s not a good idea to count your chickens before they hatch, while things look good for them just now they need to win votes and seats to make sure they are in a position to form a coalition. Yes the Polling data looks good for them and given the possible nuclear meltdown in Japan I doubt there has ever been a better time to be anti nuclear but that doesn’t mean the party is without any large challenges if it’s t increase its share of the seats at Hollyrod. The Retirement of Robin Harper is a blow not only the loss of an incumbent but he just struck me as one of most likeable people in Scottish politics much more so than Patrick Harvie. Mr Harvie himself may also have a large problem in seeking re-election in the shape of George Galloway who many except to cut into the Greens share of the vote. Finally Trams, while the Greens weren’t the only party for them, due to their nature alot of the electorate will associate the policy strongly with the party.
As for who’ll go on to form the government after the election, I would be stunned and amazed if the largest party didn’t form the government I would also think it a horribly damaging to whichever parties usurp the throne.
#16 by Indy on April 4, 2011 - 3:12 pm
I don’t think anybody is going into a coalition. Although whoever is in power would probably benefit from giving Annabelle Goldie some role as she is extremely popular with voters of all parties. However it is Annabelle that is popular – not the Tories. It would be a bit mad of the Tories to lose their best asset therefore, which they would do if she took on some kind of government role.
If you look at things in policy terms there are all kinds of permutations possible as parties share all kinds of positions.
Labour and the Tories for example are both pro-nuclear power and pro-nuclear weapons. They both want to bring in mandatory jail sentences for people carrying a knife. They are both pro-PFI.
The SNP and the Tories are both in favour of keeping the 1000 extra police and the rates cut for small business. On the other hand the SNP are anti-nuclear, anti-PFI and don’t support the Labour/Tory position on mandatory sentencing.
The Lib Dems, what are they for again? Lol. I am sure they have enough policies in common with other parties to find common ground. Ditto the Greens. They might be willing to overlook nuclear power if Labour cancelled the Forth Rd bridge for example. (There’s no chance of that happening it’s just a theoretical example).
But I don’t see any of it leading to a coalition because that would advantage no-one. It’s more about the party of government being able to find support a) to get elected to government in the first place and b) to get its budgets through than it is about anyone signing up to a partnership agreement.