Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Elections

We need an evidence based approach to crime

Apr 25

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Elections, Holyrood | 5 Comments

We managed to hassle yet another candidate in the upcoming election into guesting for us here at Better Nation.  Today we’ve got Callum Leslie, the Lib Dem candidate for Mid-Fife & Glenrothes, writing about his experience of a hustings and the issues of crime and justice.

 

Callum LeslieI was at a hustings a week or so ago in my constituency, and the difficult question of crime came up.

The Tory candidate Allan Smith said that short-term sentences should be re-introduced, so that the public can see that criminals are being punished.

Clare Baker, Labour, said that minimum sentences for carrying a knife were the answer, as people were scared.

Tricia Marwick, the incumbant SNP MSP…well, I’m not entirely sure what she said. She talked about the SNP having delivered (disputably) 1000 extra police officers, and crime being at a 32 year low.

All of these answers are all very well. Very good politicians’ answers. However, not one of them actually said what they would do to reduce crime further, and how what they suggested would do so.

Allan and I clashed first on short-term sentencing. Typical Tory posturing, accusing community sentencing and other alternatives as ‘soft-touch’, when in actual fact they are far from it. Many offenders choose to dodge community sentences and go to prison instead, as they see it as an easier option. Community payback, where they have to be up at the crack of dawn, work hard all day, and be in their homes all evening. What’s the difference between that and prison? In prison they have better access to drugs. In prison they have more recreational time. In prison they can learn the skills which make them more hardened, violent criminals.

I have studied prison and the alternatives heavily throughout my education, and my argument is backed up by cold hard statistics – two thirds of offenders in Polmont Young Offenders Institute have been there before. 79% of people sent to jail for non-violent crime re-offend within two years.

Compare this with the alternatives, and depending on the scheme re-offending rates can be as much as 30% lower. Restorative justice in particular is effective with young offenders, as it forces them to understand the severity and impact of their crime through meeting the victim. A pilot of this in Northern Ireland saw re-offending rates a third lower than those put in prison.

The Labour and Tory policy of mandatory sentences for anyone carrying a knife, which the Tories seemed to have mysteriously backed down on, is simply ludicrous. Prison doesn’t work. All the evidence points to it. The Labour party can talk about peoples’ fears, and using emotive language all they like, as Clare tried to do at the hustings, but at the end of the day they cannot say that their policy will reduce crime. Prison isn’t a deterrent – if it was, re-offending wouldn’t be so high.

Where do they propose we put these 4000, and it is 4000, extra people? A Labour councillor waffled on to me afterwards about converting prison municipal buildings, but I doubt there is room for another 4000 people in our already overcrowded prison system. Our newest prison is already at around 120% capacity.

All this while the three other major parties are proposing a single Scottish police force (though the Greens are an honourable exception here). Margo MacDonald wrote here so eloquently why this is inherently wrong, but fundamentally it puts us all at risk. Estimates from the police themselves suggest that the single police move would cost 3000 to 4000 front line police officers their jobs, as they are laid off or moved into the backroom. So the Labour party want to put 4000 more people in prison, with 4000 less police officers! The people we should trust on this are the police officers themselves, who are overwhelmingly against this move, not the politicians who insist it is a good idea, and refuse to tell us how much it will cost.

Tricia Marwick did say she was “not convinced” by the case for a single police force, but refused to answer whether or not she had completed the consultation to tell Kenny MacAskill of her fears.

Only the Liberal Democrats oppose the single fire and police forces, which would destroy local strategies, cost jobs, and wouldn’t save money anywhere near what the other parties claim. It is irresponsible. It is playing politics with our safety, and our liberty.

NB: I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to mention the 5th candidate, Jim Parker from the Pensioners’ Party, who suggested flogging was the answer to anti-social behaviour. I shall leave that one to you to form your own opinions.

Callum Leslie is the Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate for Mid-Fife and Glenrothes, and is the youngest Scottish Parliamentary candidate in the country.

There now follows a poll warning

Apr 25

Posted by The Burd in Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 27 Comments

With three polls in the last week from  IPSOS-Mori, YouGov and Scottish Progressive Opinion, we anoraks have had plenty to chew over.  They all employ quite different methodologies, so comparing them is a bit like trying to find points of similarity between broccoli, carrots and onions.

But they all indicate a significant shift in support towards the SNP.  Without any doubt, the electoral sands are shifting in Salmond’s favour, though we should be wary of hailing the victors based on what is being reported, for there are some fine details that are worthy of consideration.

First, the figures are being massaged a little at the edges.  This pre-occupation with dismissing don’t knows and uncertains to vote has a bearing on the findings.  The IPSOS-Mori poll gives the most detail with which to examine this phenomenon.  The headlines gave the SNP an 11 point lead on the constituency vote (45% to Labour’s 34%) and put them head by 10 points on the regional vote (42 to 32).  But that finding is based on participants’ voting intention and which party they are inclined to support and how certain they are to vote.  Which means rather than simply being a pure who will you vote for result, it has other things factored in as well.

One immediate consequence of doing this is to lower the sample size from the 1002 people polled to 681 respondents (or 667 if the weighted figure is used and we want to confuse matters further).  Thus, the margin for error increases on a lower number and moreover, it is universally accepted that you need a sample of 1000 to make a survey fully representative.

If we include all participants, the sample size goes back up and the figures shift slightly.  On the constituency vote it now looks like SNP on 43 and Labour on 34, a margin of 9 per cent, and on the regional vote, it is 40 to 32, a difference of 8 points.  See below for how this might impact on seats in Holyrood.

The sample then drops dramatically for the question on which party people are inclined to support.  Looking only at the findings for the constituency vote – I’m trying to simplify this, honest – we see that only 294 responded to the question and of that number, 88 were undecided or didn’t know and 73 refused to answer.  This means that only 133 people gave a substantive response, yet this finding was applied to the whole sample to come up with the headline finding ie SNP on an 11 point lead.

So what happens if we take out all the extraneous stuff and simply ask all people whom they intend to vote for?  We get a very different result.  On the constituency vote, the SNP is on 29%, Labour on 20%, Tories on 7%, Lib Dems om 6% and the don’t knows are on 23%.  For the list, it’s 28% SNP, 21% Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems on 7%, Greens on 4% and the don’t knows on 18%.

It is still a commanding lead for the SNP but suddenly, the large numbers of don’t knows – as also found by Scottish Progressive Opinion - become more relevant.

The adjustments for certainty to vote are much more subtle in YouGov’s poll findings but it is not clear how many people fall out of the sample because that detail is not given.  However, the vagaries of the electoral system mean that even a percentage point of difference – Labour is on 32% when the findings are adjusted compared to 33% when they are not – results in Labour gaining another couple of seats when those findings are entered into ScotlandVotes predictor.

It is also worth noting that YouGov’s sample size has increased considerably.  In March’s poll, it was 1025; last week’s Scotland on Sunday poll was based on a sample of 1135 adults;  and this week’s sample was 1332.  It should make for a more accurate picture but there is still considerable weighting being applied, one presumes on the basis of Westminster voting record rather than previous Scottish Parliament vote share.

The general point holds true: every time the raw data is poked around with, no matter how stringently rules are adhered to, there is a risk of contamination and affecting the findings.

And every time don’t knows are airbrushed out of the equation, the findings are being skewed somewhat.  Some of these will be genuinely unsure voters who will make up their minds at the last minute, some as late as when they reach the polling booth;  others will actually be won’t says ie they know how they are going to vote but they won’t share it;  others can now be considered as won’t votes.  At this late stage of the campaign, if people have not made their minds up, often they simply will not bother to vote at all.

So while the large numbers of undecideds might still give the Labour party a glimmer of hope, their potential for causing a swing back is diminishing day by day.  Indeed, some will simply make for the winners’ bandwagon which is more good news for the SNP.

Finally, a percentage poll lead does not translate into a gain by that margin.  A ten point poll lead translates into a much smaller swing which means most Labour MSPs will escape, albeit with their majorities scythed.  The SNP’s potential gains are just as likely to come from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats but in all cases, local factors and incumbency come into play.  On the face of it, Ayr and Galloway and West Dumfries should fall but both have longstanding, respected Conservative MSPs.  Moreover, both Tavish Scott and Iain Gray are unlikely to lose their seats and Kevin Stewart in Aberdeen Central, as depute leader of a council forced to make horrendous cuts to balance the books, might find it harder to shift an incumbent MSP than all the polls suggest.

It all adds up to a great big headache and a couple of truisms:  all to play for and the only poll that counts is the real one on 5 May.

Tags:

SNP cement remarkable poll lead with YouGov

Apr 24

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 42 Comments

You know that a blog post at just after midnight must contain something rather special to justify staying up to write but tonight’s YouGov poll not only confirms the results of the Ipsos-MORI poll from earlier in the week, it actually extends the SNP lead further:

SNP – 45%/39%
Labour – 32%/29%
Conservatives – 10%/12%
Greens – -/7%
Lib Dems – 8%/7%

In terms of seats, I make that (FPTP/list):

SNP – 52/10 (62)
Labour – 20/18 (38)
Conservatives – 0/14 (14)
Greens – 0/7 (7)
Lib Dems – 1/6 (7)
Margo – 1

So, the SNP within a whisker of an outright majority and the Greens now level pegging with the Lib Dems. How Patrick Harvie can continue to be excluded from the key leader debates is beyond me (if you agree, and haven’t signed the petition, please do so; you may find out very soon why we’re keen that you do).

Apparently this poll had a mighty one third of ‘don’t knows’ which is worthy of an eyebrow raise or two, or three if you have the means. I suspect there are a fair few Tories keeping their King of Cuts votes close to their chests and Annabel Goldie will enjoy a 2011 result near identical to the 2007 result, just before her party removes her as leader that is.

For the SNP, they only really need ~45% in both votes to win 65 MSPs; this is because parties like SCCUP/SSP/George Galloway take votes that don’t contribute to MSPs (assuming they don’t win any of course), leaving 100% of MSPs for the parties that won around 95% of the vote.

People may scoff at the idea of the SNP winning Orkney, North East, Edinburgh West and such places. Lib Dems have held Orkney since the 1950s after all. I would argue that during no part of that time have they been a part of a coalition with the Tories and there’s no guessing what is over the next wave when you are in unchartered territory.

So, if ‘Salmond for First Minister’ can drag that second vote up higher, we really could be entering an historic period for devolved Scotland and possibly even its final chapter. All that talk of ‘Scotland had a chance for voting independence, they’re call general elections’ would be awkwardly raised with Tavish, Iain and Annabel pretty darn quickly I wager, assuming Iain Gray is still an MSP of course.

Either way, with 8 pro-independence seats amongst the Greens and Margo, this poll on its own suggests that an independence referendum will happen in the next parliamentary term, and I would suspect that the SNP would use this newly found momentum and go early on that plebiscite, safe in the knowledge that they have four years to get over a loss before regrouping and facing the electorate again.

So a fascinating poll but, as Ideas of Civilisation laments, I do hope policy gets one last look-in amongst all of these polls before May 5th comes around. A week is clearly a long time in politics, are there policies to fill the next five long years? Have we really as an electorate explored all of our options for this coming half-decade? I don’t feel like the questions of tuition fees, tartan tax, council tax and fighting alcohol/health issues have really been explored, and time is running out.

And, one last thought to finish on. Assuming Labour does lose Iain Gray, Andy Kerr, Jackie Baillie, Pauline McNeill and many more well kent names in a couple of weeks’ time. Where does that leave the party, aside from fighting like ferrets in a small sack? Well, I would charitably suggest that if a political party doesn’t bring in fresh blood then the public will find a way to do it for you, and that is what looks likely to happen. So, I would welcome the unknown quantity that is the Labour group that looks set to enter the Scottish Parliament next month.

Out of interest, I make it that the 38 names are:

FPTP:
Richard Leonard
Elaine Smith
Helen Eadie
Elaine Murray
Kenneth MacIntosh
Paul Godzik
Bill Butler
Patricia Ferguson
Johann Lamont
Paul Martin
Frank McAveety
James Kelly
Duncan McNeill
Tom McCabe
John Pentland
Evan Williams
Stuart Clark
Hugh Henry
David Whitton
Michael McMahon

Regional:
Siobhan McMahon (Central)
Mark Griffin (Central)
Margaret McCulloch (Central)
Hanzala Malik (Glasgow)
Rhoda Grant (H&I)
David Stewart (H&I)
Linda Stewart (H&I)
Sarah Boyack (Lothians)
Kezia Dugdale (Lothians)
Neil Findlay (Lothians)
John Park (MS&F)
Claire Baker (MS&F)
Richard Simpson (MS&F)
Richard Baker (North East)
Jenny Marra (North East)
Lewis MacDonald (North East)
Claudia Beamish (South)
Graeme Pearson (South)

Not sure where the next leader is from that group. Kezia Dugdale tweeted recently that she was “pleased to make the cut in Scotland Votes list of potential new msps”. I’m not entirely sure that she has worked out that it’s only through Labour getting trounced that that cut will have been made.

Which begs the question – if your name was on the above list would you be pulling your weight to win constituency votes for your party? Particularly if you knew that improvement in your party’s fortunes would decrease your chances of a £50k/year job for the next five years?

Election round-up – target seats and voters

Apr 23

Posted by The Burd in Democracy, Elections, Holyrood | 10 Comments

If you were hoping to rest your brain this holiday weekend, you might want to mosey on over to some other blog.  This week’s election round-up is taking a wee look at target seats and voters.  And it’s complicated.

It is one of those sad but true facts that some constituencies matter more than others to the outcome of this, and indeed, any other Holyrood election.  For example, for the SNP to overtake Labour in Uddingston and Bellshill would require some kind of cataclysmic event and a swing of hitherto unseen enormity.  So, even if Michael McMahon never issued a leaflet and spent the whole of the campaign sunning himself in Majorca, he would still be a shoe-in. 

On the other hand, Glasgow Southside is a battleground where every vote counts.  The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon took it from Labour at the third time of asking, and just as she was getting herself comfy, along came the Boundary Commission to remove her majority.  A few streets added in, a few taken out and suddenly, this constituency has a wafer thin, notional Labour majority.  Ms Sturgeon is in the unenviable position of having to win her own seat back.

The SNP and Labour have key targets up and down the country which they must gain or hold in order to emerge with the biggest number of seats in Parliament and win the election.  However, it should not be assumed that they are only battling each other – some targets involve the other parties.  So where in Scotland might we find the gladiatorial battles?

Glasgow Southside;  Linlithgow;  Stirling;  Almond Valley;  Edinburgh Eastern;  Cunninghame North;  Dundee City West;  Aberdeen Central;  Clydesdale;  Falkirk West;  Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley;  Clackmannanshire and Dunblane; Na h-Eileanan an Iar (all are marginals with either the SNP and Labour in first or second place in 2007)

Midlothian South, Argyll and Bute, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, and Aberdeen South (SNP – Lib Dem tussles)

Dunfermline;  Edinburgh Central;  Edinburgh Southern (Labour – Lib Dem fights)

Dumfriesshire is a rare beast indeed being a Labour-Conservative battle, while the Conservatives still dream, occasionally, of taking Perthshire South (Roseanna Cunningham’s seat) from the SNP.

But things are not static during an election campaign:  trends and intelligence emerge from polls and parties’ own voter identification activity that bring other seats into play.  Thus, SNP and Labour have both clearly scented weakness in seats held by the Lib Dems and Conservatives;  constituencies like Edinburgh Pentlands, Galloway and West Dumfries, Ayr, North East Fife and Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch are now in the mix.

Of course, the existence of a regional vote that provides a top up of seats through the list system complicates things somewhat.  Parties now cannot focus on these key marginals and ignore everywhere else.  Every vote really does count on the list so there also does have to be a universal campaign to ensure that seats are won through this route.  It is of particular importance to the SNP (and parties like the Scottish Greens who do not put up constituency candidates at all) which is why everyone from Alex Salmond down realised being in the lead on the constituency vote in polls was not enough.  Thus, the SNP has been promoting the regional vote as required to elect the government, which is somewhat massaging what the list system is supposed to do. 

Labour, meanwhile, is working to ensure it does not cede seats on the regional vote, and can pick up the odd one as a kind of bonus.  But its beam is focused firmly on winning in about twenty very marginal constituencies in order to deliver them a majority of seats and election victory.

So, what does it mean to be a target seat?  A shed-load of leaflets;  support from parties’ central resources;  activists being sent in from neighbouring constituencies to help out;  morale-boosting visits from party leaders and other national figures;  remote canvassing by telephone;  and if voters are really, really lucky, a doorstep visit from the candidates.  By this stage, less than two weeks out from polling day, everything but the kitchen sink will be being thrown at these constituencies.

But it’s actually even much tighter than that.  Even within this minority of seats, there are some voters who matter more than others.  Those who have previously voted for one of the parties and who will do so again;  those who are still thinking about it but are inclined to do so either for the first time or again;  those who don’t know;  and when support for a vote is perceived to be soft, the previously identified votes for that party.  There is also the need to factor in those likely to be more cheesed off or more likely to switch, which in this election, is where the squeezed middle comes in – families, women, people aged 35 – 44 and C2s.

If the parties have done the work, with less than two weeks until polling day, they should have a bank of people who are certain or at least very likely to vote for them.  They are effectively votes in the bag.  Now, the big push is to go back to all those they know have voted Liberal Democrat or Conservative in the past to see if they can be persuaded to switch or at least, lend their vote.  A final attempt is probably also made at this stage to persuade some of the undecideds, the classic floating voter who often does not bother, to come on board.

Of course, finding the targets are only half the battle:  getting them out to vote on the day or earlier by post is the most important bit.  All of these poor voters in these key target seats can expect to be hattered and harried several times on polling day, to ensure they do actually vote.

It really is a numbers game:  intensified work and activity in certain target seats combined with identifying enough voters and then making sure those people cast their votes.   

And the moral of this election round up?  If you live in one of the above-named constituencies, and are a 38 year old woman with children who is a clerical assistant or a mechanic, who has voted SNP or Labour in the past but isn’t sure how to vote this time round, you might not want to share any of this with the parties. 

If you want any peace between now and 5 May, you could go on holiday.  Or take a vow of omerta, keep the phone off the hook, change your mobile number and email address and never, ever answer the door.

Tags: , , , , ,

Scotland well placed to have casting vote in AV referendum

Apr 22

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Elections | 22 Comments

One of my favourite cynical rebukes to the AV referendum is the charge that, if the referendum was to be held under AV, the winner could be ‘don’t care’ after both Yes and No were discarded in the necessary two run-off rounds.

Obviously this is not the case and, thanks to the First Past the Post nature of the contest, we will have a winner from this nastily contested debate in a few weeks time, irrespective of turnout.   

Many people will have already considered the possibility of Scotland delivering a resounding ‘Yes’ vote and south of the border returning a shrill ‘No’ vote, with Scotland edging out the latter in the overall result, but how likely is it that will actually happen based on recent polling? Well, somewhere close to ‘quite likely’ as it turns out. 

The recent Sunday Times poll has UK voteshare at Yes – 40.0% and No -41.5%. A tight win for the No to AV team. (This is admittedly not in keeping with the recent 16 point lead the No team recorded which, for me, appears to be rogue. Note that the Sunday Times poll that I am using had a sample size of 2,735 to this other poll’s 1,033)

The Scottish element of the Times poll is a believable Yes – 43%, No – 33% while rUK has a voteshare of Yes – 39.7%, No-42.3%.      

Now let’s say that Scots, largely already at the ballot box for the Holyrood elections, are three times as likely to vote in this referendum compared to the rest of the UK (mindful that there are some local elections and a Welsh assembly vote taking place). This would give a result of Yes-40.6%, No-40.2% (calculated by tripling the Scottish subsample size in the Sunday Times poll). 

A wafer-thin win for the Yes team then, handed directly to them by a bigger turnout in Scotland. 

It is difficult to fully comprehend the political carnage that would ensue from this “miserable little compromise” becoming law thanks to Scotland. A horrified right wing Tory group would direct fire towards Lib Dems and Scotland in equal measure, the SNP would struggle to turn down the opportunity to leverage the result to further the cause of independence and David Cameron would have to find a way to accept the result through gritted teeth. Away from Parliament, anti-Scots sentiment down here would reach a new high (low?), many perceiving that England now makes way for Scotland for democratic structure as well as financially. Will many of that Middle England, Daily Mail group decide enough is enough? We’re not all in this together and we cannot go on like this could be the rather ironic refrain. 

This is of course a contrived result from one individual poll but, if a cross-border difference in results were to happen, it would be the third time in as many years. 

In 2009, the Conservatives and UKIP won 59% of the English seats available to them in the European elections. In Scotland that figure was 16%. 

In 2010, the Conservatives won 56% of the available seats in England, in Scotland that figure was 1.7%.

And now, in 2011, Scotland once again has a markedly different take on the issue before us to that of England.  

How many times can Scotland vote one way and England another while still remaining part of the same country? ‘One more’ could be the answer, particularly if the SNP follows through on this week’s poll and is able to form a majority that can offer an independence referendum. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, whether you believe in the not entirely separate objectives of true proportional representation or Scottish independence, voting Yes on May 5th is your best bet.Â