Latest Scottish Voting Intentions
Posted on September 7th, 2008 by Anthony Wells
A new YouGov poll in the Sunday Times in Scotland has Westminster voting intentions in Scotland of CON 17%, LAB 32%, LDEM 13%, SNP 34%.
The Holyrood voting intention figures are Constituency CON 13%, LAB 26%, LDEM 15%, SNP 42%%, and regional CON 14%, LAB 25%, LDEM 14%, SNP 35%.
Despite Peter Cairn’s oft repeated claims of mass support for the introduction of a local income tax in Scotland this poll shows support for this tax crashing down from 88% to just 46%. As I have said before and I will say again the voters are NOT convinced that this tax is a good idea.
Watch the Lib Dems for their reaction to this poll!!!
Another interesting little snippet is that people would be more likely to vote for independence if Cameron wins the GE. Obviously we need to see a sustained run of polls like this before we could say that Labour has turned the tide on the SNP but it does raise the interesting question that if Scottish Labour had a popular and effective leader then they could well be ahead. However the poll also gives Salmond clear leads over the 3 Labour candidates.
Interesting stuff.
Though, last time I checked – on the Constituency vote – it’s meant to add up to 100%.
CON 13%, LAB 42%, LDEM 15%, SNP 42% adds up to 112%!
after looking at yesterdays comres poll it seams i was right about a big correction in the polling figures for scotland we are now about where we were two months ago.
I think the Holyrood constituency figures are wrong. Timesonline.co.uk has SNP 42%, Lab 26%, Lib 15% and Con 13%.
It also says this would give the SNP 59 seats (+12), Labour 36 (-10), LibDems 19 (+3) and Tories 15 (-2) (and therefore others 0 (-3)).
It looks they have simply stuck their figures into ‘Scotland Votes’, and allocated all the remaining votes (12% in the case of the list vote!) to ‘others’ so that they became irrelevant in terms of seats. This is really silly.
For Westminster, ‘Electoral Calculus’ suggest Labour 33, (-8) SNP 16 (+10 but less than Salmond’s aim of 20), LibDem 8 (-3) and Tories 2 (+1) seats.
Surely the problem is that there are very few Scottish polls, and small (<100) unweighted samples from national polls are not reliable. The last Scottish poll shown on this site is from April this year, and th eone before it, last year. Compared with those, this shows Tories static, Lab down, SNP up and LDs up a little bit.
I suspect that even if voters feel the SNP is the best party to run Scotland, or the best recipient of an anti-Labour vote, the independence thing is holding some Unionists back from switching from Labour.
It’s hardly a local income tax, it’s a tax for all Scotland. Given that the SNP wishes to pull down more powers from the UK, it now moves to pull powers up from local authorities. This is the attempted centralisation of control on Holyrood.
The shift in burden of taxation would alleviate the retired in large homes, at the expense of the upwardly-mobile in small homes. Well-off, young people are not historically associated with nationalism and moreover have fewer ties to hold them to the high-tax system, so will begin to hop across the Tweed.
Nick Clegg’s statement yesterday (I think it was) was interesting. In a nutshell, the plan is to announce tax-cuts (thus representing the party as an alternative to the Conservatives), cease most attempts to take Tory seats, adopt a holding tactic in the Tory-threatened seats and try to take anti-Labour sentiment from the Tories to gain seats in the North of England. The LibDems will take a lot of damage, but in switching to the North, they may form the geographical base that they have always lacked as Labour seems to be weakening in their post-industrial heartlands.
You can pretty much ignore my above comment, as it seems the list of Scottish polls on thi site is incomplete – there have been other polls, including by YouGov, but they’re not listed on the Scottish Polls page.
Actually I don’t believe the poll on LIT but it’s hardly surprising that here has been a drop in support for it if you had seen the absolutely screaming monsterng of it in a concerted campaign in the Scottish media for about three weeks.
Opponents are using detail of possible but soluble administrative problems to attack a principle.
Once the hyperbole fades and the distortions are righted it will regain its popularity.
Ther SNP will not deviate from its commitment to replace the Council Tax with LIT which was a central plank when we had real votes at the election.
“It’s hardly a local income tax, it’s a tax for all Scotland. Given that the SNP wishes to pull down more powers from the UK, it now moves to pull powers up from local authorities. This is the attempted centralisation of control on Holyrood.”
Absolutely right-the “Local” in it’s title refers to Scotland-not the administrative parts of Scotland.
Well I can’t say I am overjoyed about the fall in support for LIT but it’s still a ratio of five to three with a quarter undecided and there is a long way to go.
Most of the attacks will be dealt with over time and right now we will be working on Answers to them one by one.
I read the Sunday times Scotland today and to be honest it was aimed squarely at it’s own readership. In it’s piece it gave examples of the kind of people who would loose out. One on £65,000 and couple on £100,000 and a manger on £50,000.
Of course as I’ve pointed out before these incomes only really apply to the top 10-15% of scottish earners who although they may well read the Sunday times aren’t going to be core SNP supporters likely to switch to the SNP or be in sufficent numbers to swing an election.
The battle in Scotland is between the SNP and Labour for people on below average income where 60% of the vote is and almost all of them will be better off.
The losers Labour is pitching for aren’t it’s core support and are currently as likely likely to vote Tory or Libdem than Labour. Given the Labour parties problems I can’t see that as a rich vein of support especially as the Tories already oppose LIT.
However it will be a big issue come Glenrothes so the battle will be on, which should be fun.
Peter.
in scotland with the figures as they are it is quite good for dave cameron as he may even take four extra seats in scotland and not two.
the current fiugres point to.
dumfries & galloway (con gain) swing (6.9%)
east renfrewshire (con gain) swing (7.3%)
stirling (con gain) swing (8.5%)
edinbrough south west (con gain) swing (8.3)
(alister darling)
edinbrough north (ld gain) swing (3.2%)
argyll & bute (snp gain) swing (14.6%)
killmarnock & londune (snp gain) swing (13.8%)
(des brown)
linlithgow & east falkirk (snp gain) swing (12.3%)
ochill & south perthshire (snp gain) swing (14.9%)
dundee west (snp gain) swing (13.8%)
gordon (snp gain) swing (14.7%)
so all in all if this was repeated it would be a very bad night for labour who would lose 11 seats overall, the snp would gain 6, the conservatives 4 and the lib dems 1.
so the new picture of scotlad would look like this
SNP 12 +6 (+4 FROM LAB & +2 FROM LD)
LAB 30 -11 (-4 TO CON,-3 TO LD & -5 TO SNP)
CON 5 +4 (ALL FROM LABOUR)
LD 12 +1 (-2 TO SNP +3 FROM LAB)
The Scottish Government consultation on LIT can be found here;
http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/2008/03/11131725/0
Of interst is this part which calculates weekly gains and loses.
http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/2008/03/11131725/16
Peter.
Electoral calculus has us gaining Inverness from the Libdems, something I’ve suspected for some time.
It also has the Tories and SNP neck and neck in Stirling with Labour third.
Peter.
Stuart.
How do you calculate these gains? I’m slowly becoming a bit of an electoral maths geek and I’m intrigued as to how you worked this out
cheers
Will
Given that the Scots are more likely to vote FOR independence, if the Tories win the next GE, I would urge everyone in England to vote Tory, to give them that push they need for us to be finally free of them.
Just think – They’ll still whinge, but it won’t cost us a penny and all those taxes we pay over and above the Scots, will be for our own people here in England (Wales and NI will next on the list)
Helen,
But then who would the English have to blame?
(Lights blue touch paper and RUNS!!!!)
will-
at the last election the SNP were on 17.7% of the vote, in this scotish poll published today the SNP are on 34% meening their vote is up by around 16%, the labour party vote is down by 7% with the conservatives up 1%, so the swing from labour to snp is around 24% meaning that inareas like the scotish low lands where its a stright lab vs snp fight the snp are benifiting, but in areas like the north of scotland where the lib dems lead by a long way even with a big poll drop of 9% they will still hang on in maney areas due to that big lead, so in seats where the snp trail labour by less than 24% they should gain the seats but in highland seats where the lib dems are first the swing will only be around 16% so the lib dems would retain that seat, however the conservative would gain seats from labour in very marginal seats like edinbrough south west due to their high base however i have taken into acount tactical vote at a higher level for scotland than other areas, but if you use the regular 3% TACTICAL VOTE LEVEL THEN THE CONSERVATIVES GAIN TWO SEATS LABOUR LOSE 6 AND THE SNP GAIN 6 WITH THE LIB DEMS LOSING ONE, TAKE THE TACTIC VOTE OUT COMPLETLY THEN YOU GET A FLAT PICTURE OF VOTING IN ALL AREAS INCLUDING SCOTLAND, so in rounding up the snp look well placed to gain seats but it also looks likely that the conservative will do well in seats where thay are second, in any case the labour party will take big hits depending on tactical votng patterens which will play out most in the centrial low lands and glasgow area of scotland.
Stuart,
Cheers, much appreciated.
Helen –
I don’t agree with the argument that with a Conservative government Scottish people are more likely to vote for independence for two reasons:
1) looking at the poll, 62% are voting for Unionist parties, I see it very difficult for Salmond to win an independence referendum when the No block will have so much support.
2) The Scottish people aren’t against the Conservative party, they are against bad government. That’s the reason they kicked the Tories out in 1997, people didn’t see them as doing any good for them, likewise thesame reason why Labour lost power at holyrood and finally why the SNPs popularity has risen so much. The Scottish people see them to be a good government and they are happy with that, hence why support for independence hasn’t risen much yet the SNPs poll ratings have shot up
Also, don’t blame Scotland for your problems, the Treasury gets ALOT of money from North Sea Oil and also don’t blame Scotland for the block grant it receives, blame Gordon Brown for buying off his core constituency.
Helen,
As I’ve said before her, given that more than 80% of all MP’s are from English constituencies, the money scotland recieves from Westminster could have been cut by any UK government in the last fifty years and Scotland could do nothing against it.
If people in England want to cut funding for Scotland all they need to do is vote for a party that is offering it.
One word of warning though, if there is a saving, which I doubt, don’t expect it to go very far.
If the average Scot does get £1,500 more then with 8% of the UK population if that was redistributed it would work out at about £130 each, or just over £2.50 each a week.
Wills,
I also have doubts about the figure of 25% being more likely to vote for Independence if the Tories were in power, or rather the Sunday times interpretation of it. They may be more likely to vote Yes but that doesn’t mean they all will by a long way.
What it will come down to may well be differential turnout, who’s supporters go to the polls and who’s stay at home. The SNP and the Tories will turn out in large numbers for yes and no, it’s what Labour voters will do that will make the difference.
Anthony,
Sorry to go on about this but I still can’t get the full results on the Voting, Olympics & Russia poll.
Oh and the poll below it for a “Welfare Tax”, I think it should actually be a “Windfall Tax” as that is what the questions are about……..
Peter.
It should be noted that the polling showing support for the SNP’s flagship LIT policy down to 46% shows those against it at only 23%. The growth in the “don’t knows”, which explains the difference, is as a direct result of a frenetic and unscupulous campaign against LIT in all of Scotland’s media over the last three weeks or so.
Once the actual financial implications (instead of the current distortions)of LIT on most Scots are allowed to surface again the position will soon right itself.
Helen Wright
Like many people in England you are deliberately and seriously misinformed about the fiscal realaionship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The most recent GERS report (now forced to be broadly accurate following the accession of an SNP Government in Scotland) makes it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no English subsidy to Scotland. The fact that Scotland choices to spend its assigned revenues in more sensible and popular ways is what should be your concern. The most authoritative Parliamentry statement on the fiscal relationships in the UK in recent years was by William Wilberforce, Mrs Thatcher’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who published figures in response to Parliamentary questions indicating that Scotland habitually over fifty years contributed more to the UK Exchequeur than it got back in expenditure and that the Scottish deficit per capita was considerably less than the UK one and in many years in fact a surplus(which has never been achieved in the UK economy since before the Second World War).
It would be far better if we parted as friends rather than as a result of contentious and politically motivated misinformation.
David McEwan Hill
You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time re-interpreting a poll you were so eager to dismiss. There is clearly a fall in support for the LIT tax and it is simply wishful thinking to declare that this trend will soon reverse itself. Neither you nor I have any idea what the next poll will show -or even when such a poll will be run.
Helen Wright is not misinformed about the fiscal relationship between England and Scotland.You are. There is a very real anger about the CURRENT situation amongst English MP’s of all parties particularily those who represent North of England constituencies. It is only a matter of time before the Barnett formula is scrapped and a more equitable arrangement is agreed.
Until and unless the public sector in Scotland is pulled down to size and the fine old traditions of Scottish entrepenurship revived attracting back to the country its best and most able people then the concept of an independent Scotland earning its way in the world will remain deeply unconvincing to anyone who knows anything about business in today’s fiercely competitive world.
“If the average Scot does get £1,500 more then with 8% of the UK population if that was redistributed it would work out at about £130 each, or just over £2.50 each a week.”
I think that this is missing the point (or, at least, my point of view which might not be shared) on 2 counts:
1) I would not dismiss £7.2 billion per annum so lightly. To paraphrase glibly; look after the billions, and the trillions will look after themselves.
2) I would ask less what £130 would do to me, but what £1,500 to the average Scot does to Scotland.
Nick Keene
Helen Wright is seriously misinformed about the fiscal relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK and so obviously are you. I would refer you to this year’s GERS report (Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland).
You are far form alone as this fiction has been built up over at least two decades having started as a wheeze to persuade simple Scots that they needed subsidy from England so they would not vote SNP. The Labour Party has been assiduous in peddling this myth amd it is very satisfying watching the lie coming back to bite them.
The trick of course is to,identify areas where simple geography means that Scottish spending per capita is high – ie health provision, education etc and call that “identified public spending”, ignore huge other areas of public spending, and never mention the huge percentage deficit Scotland suffers in Government procurement. You could of course produce the same sort of result from, say, Westmoreland and the welfare spending per head is significantly more per head in the North of England than it is in Scotland.
I suggest, if you are serious, that you contact Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, previously employed as Government economists and now working a free lance consultants if you want the reliable information. It is their work and expertise that has forced the Government to stop producing phoney GERS figures. They can be contacted online.
Looking at the full tables for the scottish poll there are some interesting figures.
firstly it breaks down the independence vote by Party., Gender, Age and Class, which gives some idea of who thinks what.
Unsurprisingly 70% of the yes vote vote SNP (while *5 of the No vote are SNP supporters too). Roughly speaking libdems are 2-1 against, Labour 3-1 and tories 4-1. The SNP are 9-1 in favour.
Support for the SNP is highest in the over 55’s but lowest in the 35-54’s. by class it’s roughly even. Labour unsurprisingly has more C2DE’s while Tory and libdems more ABC1’s.
In the Holyrood constituency and regional votes both Labour and SNP do better than westminster in C2DE’s while the Tories and Libdems fair even better with ABC1’s.
Oddly enough when asked about voting for Independence it’s 35-54’s who are most in favour. on class it’s an even split.
The figures for best leader agains show alex salmond way out in front. He gets 41% with the closest to him Annabel Goldie on 8%. Among tory voter Goldie beats Salmond by 40% to 26%.
Tavish Scott gets slight worse with 32% to Alex Salmonds 25% among Libdems, While the Labour front runner to take over from Wendy Alexander, Cathy Jamieson only gets 21% from labour voters compared to Alex Salmonds 23%. Alex also comes out top for those who would vote no to Independence.
Touching on the theme of Anthony’s latest post the question of how the possibility of a cameron government would potentially impact on an independence referendum gives the following;
It would make no difference to 65% rising to 75% for under 35’s, and of those more inclined to back independence feeling is stronger among ABC1’s than C2DE’s……. Go figure that one.
On dealing with the credit crunch Salmond beats Brown even thogh he has few financial powers (36 to 26), with support highest among over 55’s (45 to 24) he does better for all classes but agin best with ABC1’s. That later score may well be down to Tories who just don’t like Brown.
Behind the 46 to 31 support for LIT the strongest support is among the 55+’s again at 55% to 26%, but then we all know that pensioners don’t like the Council tax. In contrast but equally predictable support is just about even among the under 35’s (34% to 35%).
As students are exempt and these are the people least likely to own or rent a home it’s what you would expect.
In Class terms both groups are 46% for with 30-33% against. I suspect that is a combination of the trade off between the better off not liking paying more and older middle income owners with above average homes paying less.
A young well off Tory couple in a flat won’t like it but a retired Tory couple in a big house will. They can all argue about it when their kids come round for tea.
What all this seems to suggest is that currently both the SNP and LIT have broad support across the country.
Peter.
The SNP will have 8 seats at the next Westminster General Election.
I have just done an analysis, afresh, trying to re-work out the most likely results, and I can only see them gaining 2 seats.
The majorities are too big.
Willing to take a bet.
This is the whole of my post I just put on the seats section. Too often I think we have sometimes had political arguments in that section where people don’t like other people’s predictions, understandably. I thought I’d try to go through all the seats afresh, looking pretty rigorously (I’m Tory) at what the results might be like in 2010….
I’ve just gone through all the seats in Great Britain, trying to make a “most likely” forecast.
(Not an average, mid point, but a most likely punt).
I’ve done it fairly rigorously from my political point of view, on the likely trends, assuming a fall in GDP of about 1% next year, but some swing back to the government.
However, I still do not rule out a dramatic change in the political situation – but do not see it as a likely scenario.
On the other hand, the Tories could take more seats, and I had to take a punt on some for most likely.
Con 328 +114
Lab 240 -103
LD 49 -14
SNP 8 +2 (yes, that’s all).
PL C 5 +3
Ind/oth 1 -2
Spkr 1
N I 18
Tory gains in Scotland I have as Stirling, and 2 in the Borders.
I ruled out all the others in case.
Joe James B
But how have you done your seats forecast? I find it all but impossible to do this because I simply do not believe that a uniform swing even on a regional basis will occur.Nor do I think that the extent of an assumed and critical swing from Lib Dem to Tory in Labour held seats can be predicted with any degree of accuracy.
For a hint of future voting patterns I suspect that we have to go back and look at the 1987 election results being the last one before tactical voting began. Boundaries have changed of course since then but even so I think I can just about see the shape of things to come although I certainly cannot visualise the scale. The Tory majority could indeed be as low as you suggest but equally it could be 100 as in 1987. That depends as you say on any swing back to the government but if GDP falls by 1% next year that’s not likely.
Nick
I’ve done it fairly pessimistically from a Tory point of view.
If in doubt, I’ve tended to asign them to Labour or LD, but have taken a punt on some.
I did it by just abandoning a lot else, and looking at each seat and trying to ask will this change hands or not.
I suppose I’ve assumed a Tory rise of 6-9% and a Labour fall of about 3-4% – for the most part.
I think there could be a tipping point with about 25-35 more seats, but perhaps my exercise is a warning that the Tories still face a substantial task and talk of landslides is premature.
Joe James B,
So what are your two SNP gains then?
Peter.
One in Dundee,
and I think Edinburgh East.
I may, of course, be wrong, but looking at the Labour majorities and assuming General Elections aren’t by-elections, and bearing in mind that the May 2007 constituency votes did not see a Labour collapse, frankly, I think Labour will keep nearly all of them.
Of course, there could be a tipping point, but can we really see consistent swings of more than about 7-10% across the Central Belt?
Joe,
What about Ochill & South Perthshire, I’d also expect stirling as I was there a few weeks ago at a wedding full of ex-miners who were all backing the SNP.
Peter.
May have miscounted that one,
but the point remains –
we’re not looking at lots of seats falling are we?
The SNP will nibble at Labour’s majorities all over the central belt, but seats?
I think Stirling could be a Tory gain on a low share of the vote actually, but defer to your local knowledge which is substantial.
After some more thought, I have a hunch, gut feel only, that the Tories might actually snatch Perth from the SNP, which would be against the overall net trend.
But it would be a one off.
I just feel they might manage to take more Labour and Lib Dem votes than the SNP will.
All this, of course, assumes some continuation of current trends.
Joe,
I doubt Perth, their aren’t that many labour votes to go ver and they are more likely to stay at home or vote SNP than tory. As for Libdems they want a hung parliament not a tory government and as Labour are on there way out I can’t see the tories as attractive.
Peter.
I’d say Ochil and Dundee West are the most likely gains. The Kilmarnock and Aberdeen North seats also maybe? Inverness if the Liberals remain becalmed. Perhaps if the SNP can win Glenrothes they’ll hang onto it in 2010, though Glasgow East will likely return to the fold. Can’t see the Tories winning anything from the SNP.
Given that he is still seen by many scots as “their man”, I think if the Labour party gets rid of Brown ( making him the third Scottish UK leader to get ditched in just over as many year, I think that Labour could go down further in Scotland.
One interesting Tory change ( or tactic) is that Cameron has said he would discuss the issue of CTB if the Scottish Parliament votes for LIT. Oh and apparently Tavish Scott has started discussions with Alex salmond over a deal on LIT too.
Peter.
The SNP seem to think that they are in a continuous win-win situation but would’nt it be the most delicious irony if the introduction of the dreaded Local Income Tax was to bring about a major revival of the Tory party in Scotland? The SNP may have calculated that they might gain twice as many votes from less well off Labour supporters as they might simultaneously lose if some of their better off support deserts or reverts to the Tories. Maybe Mr Cameron has made the same calculation which could be why he is allegedly ready to discuss CTB if and when he is escounced in Downing Street.
The one sure loser in all this seems to be the Labour party.
Certainly election night in Scotland is going to be very interesting! Personally I will be astounded if the SNP don’t get at least reach their target of 20 seats given the way the polls look at the moment. Scottish Labour are in disarray and they don’t seem to know how to counter Salmond, personally I think John Mason will hang on to Glasgow East. For the LD’s the object looks like damage limitation, 2005 was an exceptionally good year for them but the climate is now very unfavorable to them. They won’t lose that many seats as most of their MP’s have formidable majorities, I have a feeling that Jo Swinson might hang on by the skin of her teeth. However, the SNP would appear to be favourites for Argyll and Inverness. Away from the seats they currently hold I think it could be very ugly for them. As for the Tories, the consensus is that they should gain Galloway and Roxburgh and turn the Borders blue. They could well get Renfrew E, Stirling and Edinburgh S but that’s the maximum I can see them getting. As was said above, the 2 most winnable seats for them are Angus and Perth yet the best they can realistically hope to do is to gain as many votes as they can and wait for the SNP to slip back.
Consider the longer dimension; who would have thought this discussion twenty years ago? Makes you think about the position in a further twenty years …
All bets are off in Scotland at the moment and the fluctuations in the polling tell of a very volatile situation. What is emerging is a completely new polarisation in the Scottish political scene – the Union versus independence – and no matter the fluctuations of political support determined on more prosaic issues – this polarisation becomes bigger and bigger and is even now the dominant issue.
This is the SNP’s chosen battlefield and Scotland has eventually arrived at it despite unionists’ increasingly desperate attempts to divert politics into other issues.
On the LIT issue though the principle is very attractive to the average Labour voter it is no less attractive to a fairly large swathe of the retired Tory vote and certainly has the support of the LibDem vote(such as it is). As I said before I was pounced upon by Nick Keane the LIT proposal has been monstered by the entire Scottish media for several weeks now so for it still to be registering twice as many for as against is something of a marvel(and very significant). The SNP will win the Westminster election on this issue in Scotland. A former SNP luminary Jim Sillars once said that the SNP would have to wait for Labour to let Scotland down before it could achieve the final advance. Now’s the day and now’s the hour as Rabbie said. I have three major concerns on the polling data from Scotland. Very often Scottish figures are made up by extraction of a very small and certainly unreliable sample from a UK wide poll. Secondly how representative of Scotland wide opinion are these polls. Thirdly polls done on phones are now less than rigorously representative. Those accessible to phone canvassing are now a fairly small sub section (mainly lower middle class) and in particular there is not among it adequate representation of the proportion of the electorate below thirty years of age. These are voters who will determine Scotland’s direction.
Nick,
Even if your whacko scenario was to come about the tories ould at best form a minority government and that could never repeal LIT when it benefits the majority.
Do try to keep up.
Peter.
Peter Cairns
“Whacko Scenario”? Now what DID I do with my Michael Jackson records? Really Peter you of all people should know better than to use expressions like that. It’s a bit like the kettle calling the pot black is’nt it?
The SNP is a one trick pony which to cover its lack of coherent polices elsewhere comes up with half baked proposals like the LIT tax and the latest-the real humdinger-banning anyone under 21 buying booze in off licences and making old age pensioners stand in seperate queues when buying drink at the supermarket. Never mind that half the squaddies serving in the war zones must be under 21….never mind the shame OAP’s might feel….barmy just plain barmy.
One trick ponies never stay the course.
‘The SNP is a one trick pony ‘
Sorry but the use of such emotional terminology without the support of a decently researched book is really annoying on a site theoretically dedicated to analysis of polls and implications. I would certainly argue any party in power, in particular, has shown at least some skills to have more than one trick. Obviously the SNP, whether you like them or not, has many skills/ policies or do you believe the voting electorate in Scotland can be totally befuddled by one trick.
So does the SNP have a range of ‘tricks’ or do you think the Scottish electorate fall for a single policy (and, if so, feel free to explain the potential racism)?
I prefer this site when it examines polls and implications and sticks to them…
Jack,
I understand what you mean but I’m intrigued to know if you would complain about the content of these discussion pages if they were having a go at Labour or the Tories.
I would argue that the SNP are one trick ponies in that they are very good at spending money yet when it comes to raising the money their one policy has go down faster than a lead balloon. And, bringing it back to the polls, the scottish people actually recognise it!
The SNP’s support has grown in the polls for both Westminster and Holyrood because in one parliament they only spend money so of course they are well liked and in the other they can’t do anything. Yet when it comes to the policies that will see them having tax raising powers, i.e. LIT and independence, then support in the polls is sinking for the LIT and static for independence.
If the SNP are really serious about helping the people of Scotland then they should join in with the other parties on the Calman Commission and help to form a non-partisan agreement on what best serves the people of Scotland. Having a parliament that is in charge of both tax raising and spending will see a more accountable government in Holyrood and it will mean that the party who can claim to spend the most will not necessarily win.
Jack
Will S has said it all ten times better than I ever could inso far as the SNP are concerned.
If you wish to take part in debate on this site then I suggest you spend a little time getting the feel of it first. And if you can’t hack it then perhaps you should seek an alternative berth. Proclaiming to be above the herd and then hinting that somebody is a racist because their views don’t accord with yours hardly equips you for canonisation.
The point I made about the LIT tax on the 9th September was a perfectly valid observation arising out of the latest poll. That in turn prompted the ‘whacko’ comment from Peter Cairns to which I responded in kind. The fact that you chose to criticise me but not him is rather telling. Methinks you protesteth too much.
Have a nice day.
Nick,
Thanks for that, I expect an angry SNP supprter to try and knock it down!
I find it very funny how irrate SNP supprters get on this site. It is largely unmenmtioned in the media at how the SNP ‘won’ the elections last year. They proclaim that according to their slogan, ‘it’s time’ yet they never mention that they ‘won’ becuase of a protest vote against Labour.
Whilst I understand the benefits of the electoral system in Holyrood, it ironically stops Labour having total control, I like First Past THe Post and think that a win is a majority not 1 seat!
I’m looking forward to the forthcoming SNP postings!
If the SNP’s support has grown because the Parliament only spends money, then why did Labour lose as they had exactly the same money to spend.
As to having trouble getting policies like LIT through, I think you’ll find that’s because Labour and the Tories don’t support it and the LibDems have issues with aspects of it.
I find it hard to believe that support is falling away when those supporting LIT is higher than support for the SNP and far higher than the vote we got at the election.
We have the same money as the Lib/Lab coalition had but are more popular because of how we have chosen to spend it as there isn’t a policy the SNP has pursued that they couldn’t have if they had wished.
It would however have been a lot easier if under FPTP we had a majority on a minority of the vote and could just declare independence, problem is it wouldn’t be democratic.
Peter.
Nick,
The idea of the Tories gaining power in Holyrood is fanciful nonsense, as it assumes that;
a) There are is many votes on above £25,000 than below, which there are not.
b) It fails to take account of the many elderly Tories who will benefit, and that many of the losers aren’t natural Tories.
c) It forgets that where as below £25,000 is dominated by Labour/SNP those above £25,000 are split four ways.
d) There is no evidence from any poll that those leaving the SNP would be more inclined to voteTtory than revert to Labour which is still more popular than the Tories with scots, or that they would not vote LibDem.
These four reasons make the scenario unlikely and implausable and are based on the demographics and voting patterns of the Scottish electorate. That’s why I said you should try to keep up.
As this blog focuses on polls and polling you should at least try to use that information to justify a scenario and on the basis of available information yours just doesn’t stack up.
But then that’s the difference between analysis and wishful thinking.
I make no secret of who i am or what I stand for and although I will defend LIT against what I see as unfair attacks that miss the main point, namely that it will benefit the majority and particularly those on low incomes.
However, I am not, nor ever will be an apologist for all things SNP as many on this site no from long experience.
Peter.
“problem is it wouldn’t be democratic”
Why is that a problem?
So is removing from democratically elected Councils,the power to raise revenue from their voters;and substituting a Scottish National Income Tax, raised by and allocated from Holyrood.
So is making a national promise of smaller class sizes before the election&-then,when in government saying “the target would be met by councils.”-without providing the funds.
So is making a national promise of a Scottish Futures Trust before the election-then when in a government which turns out to lack the bond issuing powers, suggesting that locally elected councils could raise funding-without consulting them.
Some of SNP’s fine promises are getting lost in a sea of arbitrary & un-democratic expediency.
Why not go the whole hog & just declare UDI?
IMHO LIT will not affect the vote in Scotland one way or another. The position is between the SNP who are the smart people in Scotland and the rest.Wasn’t this once Gordon Brown’s USP – that he was an economic genius opposed to John Major’s two O levels.?
Coiln,
The Scottish Parliamnet has the power to change Local Taxation and if it choses to change it then it can. It is elected by PR and if the bill gets through it will be with the support of those elected by a majority of those who voted.
That beats both the Poll Tax and the Community Charge both of which were introduced by Governments who only had the backing of a minority and what’s the democratic basis for central government capping the council tax or ring fencing funding.
In an ideal world Councils would set there own tax but in a nation of 5 million people with thirty two councils four of which have less than 60,000 people it’s impractical, or at least in would probably cost more to impliment than the difference between what Councils would raise.
As the difference between the highest and lowest CT in Scotland in proportion to the proposed 3% LIT is +/- 0.25%, is it really worth the Banks , large companies like Tesco’s or Health Boards and Councils in the central belt having to work out a dozen different pay tax rates for that kind of variation.
Councils have been given an additional £280m over three years as part of the Council tax freeze and along with an end to ring fenching have agreed to a shared set of objects of which smaller class sizes is one. Any council that wants to priorities class sizes over other things is free to do so.
What democratically elected Councils do with their share of the money is up to them. Cathy Jamieson was saying that the £280m should be spent on 10,000 new teachers, well if that’s what Councils want to do then thye are free too.
Any Council that wants to fund what was previously ring fenced in exactly the same way as before is also free to do so. Funny thing is not one, even where Labour are in power or administartion, or where the administration hasn’t changed, has chosen to do so.
The Government agreed objectives and supplied funding and it’s up to the democratically elected Councils to set their own priorities.
Between setting the Council tax or being able to set my own priorities without ring fencing or central government dictat within a fixed budget I know which I prefer and which I support.
SFT isn’t what any of us would have hoped because without the powers of Councils to borrow or issue bonds we don’t have the power to borrow centrally. That leaves us with the half way house of Councils collaborating on projects and borrowing in groups to pay for construction.
It’s making the best of a bad job but it does remove the biggest scandal of PFI/PPP which was the manipulation of borrowing so that the consortium could make profits for subbordinate debt at rates of 20%pa over 20 to 30 years.
We need to deliver £30bn of national investment over a decade without national borrowing powers which means we need to try to get the best deal we can. I’d be the first to admit that we hoped for more than £150m a year savings from that size of programme but those attacking SFT seem to think it’s not worth the effort.
Well we think it is.
Still as you raised the subject given that these things need to be built, within the current limits of the parliaments powers, what would Labour, the Libdems and Tories intend to do about PFI/PPP.
Peter.
Cllr Cairns,
‘We have the same money as the Lib/Lab coalition had but are more popular because of how we have chosen to spend it’ – Rubbish, this argument works until you look at the polls and see how as Labour support is fading off yours is picking up. Labour is hemorrhaging voters and in the same way the Tories are picking up their votes in England, The SNP are doing the same in Scotland.
With regards to the LIT then of course the supprt is higher than your vote, the majority of SNP voters support it and then a fraction of all other voters. Its naive to suggest that only people who vote SNP would support it. The mainpoint is that the majority of Scottish people have seen sense and have decided that they are against it.
“If the SNP’s support has grown because the Parliament only spends money, then why did Labour lose as they had exactly the same money to spend.” Well they didn’t spend it like you are in fact, they were slightly more fiscally prudent. Given the option of an incumbent Labour administration or Salmond charging in on his over spending white horse of course you ‘won’.
I normally don’t comment on sites like this but I read the polls and I accept that a poll doesn’t actually give you a lot of information. For the SNP to proclaim themselves the champion of the Scottish people based on polling data is in some cases questionable and in most cases just wrong. As Anthony has written may times before, not only must you be very careful in the way polls are structured and the questions asked but also how they are interpreted. In the same way the Tories must be careful about crowing abouttheir poll lead so must the SNP or otherwise you will find it won’t last long.
Peter,
I do wish you would spend a little more time reading what people actually say as opposed to writing such long and convoluted messages.
I NEVER said or suggested that the Tories could ever gain power in Holyrood. They plainly won’t. As a matter of fact I think that their ceiling in Scotland in any election is 25% last achieved in 1992. But even such a modest figure would constitute a major revival by any yardstick. To answer your other points:
a) Eh no actually what I said was that the SNP might gain twice as many votes from Labour as lose votes to the Tories. Please keep up Peter.
b)Obviously many of the possible losers will be those earning a decent salary. Quite a few of them in my constituency deserted the Tories last year and voted SNP but from my soundings in Edinburgh they won’t do that next time if LIT comes to pass. Instead it is perfectly possible to suggest that they MIGHT Peter MIGHT revert to the Tories. As for elderly Tories that breed are such dyed in the wool unionists that I doubt they would ever vote SNP even if you gave them free tickets to all the home games played by Caledonian Thistle.
c) a fair point but in the current climate none of these people are likely to consider voting Labour but yes I concede that some of them could vote Lib Dem.
d) I am perfectly entitled to crystal ball gaze -which I did slightly tongue in cheek-without having to refer to an opinion poll since in this scenario the question has yet to be put and I am doubtful that it will be.
Wishful thinking permeates much of what folk of all persuasions write on this site and you are no exception. And biased opinions don’t equate to the proper “analysis” you claim you always seek to portray .You do not speak for the people of Scotland but for only those who voted for you in just one ward in the City of Inverness. And so long as the long suffering Anthony concurs we all have an equal right to be heard. You do not have a monopoly on wisdom. Please remember that and get off your high horse.
Is there a price for imcompetent / dishonest reporting of opinion polls? If so the Sunday Times should have a big chance of winning it.
It reports the Holyrood voting figures as SNP 42%/35%, Lab 26/25, LD 15/14, Con 13/14 (and therefore others 4/12). It further gives seats as SNP 59, Lab 36, LD 19, Con 15 (and therefore others 0). These are the exact figures you get with scotlandvotes.com if you input the figures for the four big parties as above and assign the rest to ‘others’.
But the tables break down others as Greens 6%, Socialist (non-swinging) 4, Socialists (swinging) 1, other 2. For this scotlandvotes.com would have SNP 56, Lab 36, LD 17, Con 15, Green 3, SSP 2.
Christian
Re LIT, I think most of the apparent unionist who are denouncing it here are missing the point and are thus continuing the very behaviour that helped so much to get the SNP to where it is.
Let’s be clear about this, the hatred against LIT has little to do with the subject itself. If it was, then given the unpopularity of the Council Tax, Labour and the Tories would by now have proposed their own workable and sensible alternatives. They haven’t (in case of Labour because McConnell was vetoed by London), so the only other sensible idea is the Green’s Land Value Taxation (which suffers from being sponsored by the Greens).
No, the cause of the venom is that LIT is a big and radical SNP proposal. (Virtually all previous SNP actions were boring and sensible or popular gimmicks.) And if a proposal is a major change it often means that the detailed results can not predicted with 100% certainty. So there are some questions about LIT details, and die-hard unionist declare them to be principles because at the moment they cannot think of any other weapon to try to hit the Nats.
But in my view there are two problems. Firstly is that LIT is a fairer tax than the Council Tax. Yes, there might be some smaller problems with LIT, but its fundamentals are sound. So should the SNP get LIT through Holyrood, they’ll look when LIT bills appear.
Secondly, even if LIT fails, its opponents will be blamed for every single council tax increase. I can already see SNP controlled councils pointing it out to their constituents in future years, ‘Sorry for the Council tax increase, under LIT you would have paid £XX less, but the unionists stopped us’. Say 1/2% increase in support for independence? And every little bit counts…
Christian Schmidt,
I’d go along with pretty much everything you say although I would challenge the merits of LVT in a Scottish context.
Firstly there is the issue of the extreme variation in Land prices.
Even now a town house in Edinburgh with a nice garden covering 100mx100m will sell for close too £5m, but the Cullin Mountains on Skye which included 6 miles of coastline was on the market for two years and didn’t get a buyer at £10m.
Now if we assume the Cullins were say 10kmx10km at 100 hectares to 1km then prperty in Edinburgh is up to 5,000 times open moorland.
With 70% of Scotland open moor or hills and less than 10% build upon it still means that because of the land value differential the burden would fall disproportionately on business and home owners making it an electoral disaster.
It only takes a party researcher to replace “Land Value Tax” with “Garden Tax” and then any party proposing it is facing melt down.
If you have three plots the same size in the same area they all pay the same LVT, regardless of whats built on them but it’s the people in the buildings that matter in political terms.
The first plot is a small old bungalow with a pensioner couple, the second has a Young family with one earner and two kids in a detached house, and the third has a professional couple with no kids who have sold off half the garden to a developer who has put up a block of four flats, bought by people working on high salaries in the city.
Under LVT, the pensioners and family both pay the same, the professional pay half of that and each of the city slickers pays and eighth of the pensioners.
That is of course an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate just what a nightmare trying to get LVT introduced would be.
In a Scotland in terms of LVT the best developement was Glasgows Red Road flats because they had the maximum number of people in the smallest possible area, but they were a huge vertical slum that we are now in the process of pulling down.
Peter.
What makes me see RED is the ridiculous draconian left wing policies of the SNP in Scotland which have been the downfall of Labour in the rest of the UK.
PETER CAIRNS still talking about class and who votes for who – he must open his eyes and see that voting intentions based on class is something from another era and not relevant to modern voters ANYWHERE in the UK. I have warned our SNP cllr before about he and his party being complacent and taking the Scottish votes for granted.
The current rise of the SNP is purely disaffected Labour voters and will fade with time (a short time). The old phrase comes to mind “the bigger they are, the harder they fall !”
“the cause of the venom is that LIT is a big and radical SNP proposal.”
No, not all. To take the LD argument for a second: LIT is a big and clunking SNP proposal.
LIT is a centralised Scottish national tax collected by Holyrood, spent on Holyrood projects and accountable to Hollyrood – in other words, an SNP tax collected by the SNP, spent by the SNP projects and accouted for by the SNP.
So, no wonder the SNP is for it.
However this does raise the question why the SNP wasn’t in favour of LIT when they weren’t in power and whether they will still be in favour of it when they are no longer in power.
As I understand it the LDs have been in favour of LIT for the better part of a couple of decades (correct me if I’m wrong) and originally suggested it as one of a variety of altrnatives when replacing the poll tax (of which LVT was already a well-establish option).
A true LIT means different councils would be freed from dependency on grants from central government (Westminster of Holyrood) and thereby provide a real incentive to get involved in your local democracy and hold local councillors accountable.
So it is bewilderingly generous that the LDs would even propose to give this power to authorities where they never stand a hope in hell of getting elected!
For the record I’d complicate the matter by proposing a mixed LIT+LVT scheme and is one of the reasons I cannot support the LDs on their taxation plans. I also have less problem than the LDs with the Scottish executive using their tax-raising powers at a Holyrood level if this makes them more accountable and removes the motivation for the wasteful pork-barrel projects and favoritism shown under Labour and SNP administrations. I want to see politicians stop treating their constituencies like their feifs and their constituents like their chattle.
As for how this influences the polls, this is where the cracks within the SNP start to open out between the liberal localists, right-wing nationalists and centralising socialists that form their ‘Scottish Coalition Party’. I expect this non-LIT proposal will alienate the localists first and therefore benefit the LDs in subsequent scottish polling. Their new leader Tavish Scott must be licking his chops for his good timing!
Mike,
I commented on the breakdown by the divisions presented in the poll and mostly on the lack of difference. I have to wonder why, if as you suggest Class has nothing to do with it almost all the polsters still use it.
I think regardless of whether you use class or income peoples relative wealth does have an effect on how they both percieve policies and ultimately vote.
Looking at the responses by income or classification to see how different groups respond to different policies isn’t class warfare, it’s making good use of the available information.
That’s one of the reasons political parties put so much effort in to collecting an analysing it, so that they can tell if the policies they are proposing are going to get them the votes where they need them.
LIT looks in demographic terms very likely to be a vote winner for the SNP because it appeals to the core vote of our biggest opponent while being least popular with the smaller groups who are the least likely to vote for us.
The fact that those who will benefit are the most deserving in my view and the most in need and those that will pay more, though hard working the most able to afford it are bonuses.
If you see helping those at the bottom as draconian and left wing you probably think we should have stuck with the poll tax and made those who couldn’t pay do community service.
Thomas,
LIT has been SNP policy since the early ninties and we have called for it since before devolution. The change has been to set it nationally rather than locally because as I pointed out elsewhere the costs and red tape involved in setting 32 different rates aren’t justified by the half percent variation in tax that the currrent spread of Council tax equates too.
As to SNP tax for SNP projects, all money raised by LIT will be retained by councils and it’s the SNP that on comming in to government has removed 90% of the ring fenced funds and rolled them in to Council budgets giving them the freedom to use them as they see fit.
Oh and as you’ve raised it;
Just what are the SNP pork barrell projects you are talking about?
Finally if you like the idea of LVT ,how would you overcome the issues I’ve highlighted. Even if you overcome them, I can’t see the electorate being excited by the prospect of replacing one tax with two.
Peter.
Peter, what the SNP is calling for is not LIT, so how long you’ve been calling for LIT is a blatant misrepresentation.
‘Ring-fencing’ of funds is not the same as decentralising powers so it is an untruth to say you are giving new freedoms to councils.
Perhaps ‘pork-barrel’ is harsh, when ’symbolic’ might be more accurate, but nevertheless the SNP inconsistently applies incoherent principles. The SNP will struggle to paper over the cracks in your internal coalition as successive policies chip away the unity and successive failures chip away at harmony.
This ‘non-LIT’ will start to splinter the liberals, the economic failure will crack the socialists and the inability to bring about independence will alienate the nationalists.
The longer the SNP remains in government the weaker it will become at the polls, so just like Brown’s failure to call an election when he had a chance of winning has drained support from him, the window is closing on this once-in-a-lifetime chance for Salmond to redefine the political geography by imposing his vision on the parliamentary landscape.
Thomas,
I didn’t say we have given them new freedoms, I said we have given them the freedom to spend the money as they see fit. Exactly which new powers would you want Local government to have.
Okay if not Pork barrell, symbolic then. Which symbolic wasteful policies are we talking about. For that matter what are the inconsistantly applied incoherent principles are we implimenting.
You are of course correct in saying that, like all Governments, the SNP’s popularity will decline over time. No one, least of all the SNP, expected us to be this popular for this long. but unlike the UK PM the FM can’t call an election as we have fixed four year terms and any minority government we have would simply be replaced by opponents.
We could I suppose have tried to rush the referendum, but again as a minority we’d have hardly have got that through the parliament if it looked like at dash for independence was going to work, would we.
As to splits between liberals and socalists I’ll probably be at conference in October in Perth, and I full expect to see a degree of unity probably greater than any other UK conference this year.
Nor would I expect to see much decent over the next year with a UK election coming up followed by a possible referendum and then we are in to 2011 and the next Holyrood elections.
So barring “Events” try me againin about 2013, when I suppose if we are still the government we will be looking a bit tired our opponents will have there act together and things will have moved on a good deal from the politics of today.
Peter.
I’ll look forward to your report back from your conference to hear the details, but you’ll forgive me if I take everything you say with a pinch of salt as regards your objectivity. And whether your expectations are borne out by the reality remains to be seen.
The SNP’s opposition to Skye Bridge tolls is popularly trumpeted as an example of how you are ‘in touch’ with the wishes of the populace, but your grandstanding gives lie to your inability to change the way government works with regard to financing mechanisms and the continuing dependancy on PFI, to provide one simple example.
In effect the SNP is just tinkering at the margins and represents just more of the same, when your vote were won with the promise of real change – this kind of approach is inconsistent and is unsustainable over the medium-to-long term. When the hangover kicks in people will be left scratching their heads asking what remedies you offer.
Enjoy this years’ conference while the euphoria lasts, the next few will be very different.
Thomas,
So as we have no borrowing powers as a parliament or the ability to issue bonds, other than coordinating those parts of the government who can borrow to do so in groups so we can get the lowest price and to create a pool of expertise to do better in negotiations what would you have us do.
Despite the criticisms of private profit, the biggest issue with PFI/PPP has been the profits made from interest on the borrowing. To borrow from banks is more expensive that through the PWB ( public works board) and if the borrowing is made by consortium rather than Councils then they add there mark up to.
What the SNP is trying to do is cut out the consortiums role in borrowing by going directly to the banks and by having a centralised specialist team negotiating for groups of Councils to get a better deal for Banks.
As I’ve said before it’s not what we want or would choose but as we can’t borrow or issue bonds what else can we do. As with pretty much every other area all we can try to do is improve on what we inherited with the powers we have.
Ultimately we will be judged on what we have done with the powers we have compared to what others did with the same powers and then what we promise to do with them in future.
One of the reasons we are actually getting so much support from traditional Labour supporters is that not only do they like what we are doing they feel let down by Labour because there is nothing we have done that Labour couldn’t have.
Peter.
Stuart Gregory-
I am afraid your system still makes no sense. I have little doubt it overstates Lib Dem support and understates SNP support. It seems first you took the general trends and rightly noted an 11.5% swing (i.e., 23 point change in the margin) from Labour to SNP and also a 4 point swing Labour-to-Tory and a 1.5% swing ***Liberal to LABOUR***, then it is not seriously possible that the Liberals will gain a seat and the SNP take fewer than in the general calculation. You are taking tactical voting into account . . . ok, fine. But how much of a swing can there really be from Labour to Liberal in the few seats where the anti-Labour vote won’t actually go Tory or SNP? Only a couple points. And this means the swing Lib to Lab in Lab-SNP marginals must be higher. Yet, it means most importantly that the Lab-to-SNP swing in the industrial heartland must be upwards of 15 points. I don’t have the free time now to make the calculations, but I have no doubt that this would only lead to a higher SNP score than 16 seats.
Remember, the SNP will gain in Lib-Lab and Tory-Lab marginals as well, and can easily zoom from 3rd place to victory in these conditions.
Okay, I actually did the math . . . . I won’t write it all out here but I figured a 17% swing from Labour to SNP in the 22 such marginals from 2005. This means that elsewhere the swing averaged around 8%. In Lib-Lab marginals the swing from Labour was just 1% and in Con-Lab 8% (but still 9% to SNP). This also means in Lib-Tory marginals the swing to the latter was 5% and in SNP-Tory seats, the SNP had a 13 point advantage on their rival.
In do not believe I found a case of a party shooting from third place to victory though the SNP came close in a couple.
The results are: SNP gains 14 seats from Labour (well, if we consider the Liberal by-election win last year, 13 from Labour and 1 from LD). The Tories take three seats and Liberals win Edinburgh South. Labour wins back Glasgow East, however.
So, my account of tactical voting leaves: Labour 23, SNP 20, Liberals 12, Tories 4. So Stuart was not so wrong in predicting a gain for the Liberals but I was right in expecting bigger Nationalist wins based on above average swings in the West, Glasgow, and Central regions.
Thomas S:
The only quibble I would have with your analysis is that while the Cons might have a reasonable chance of winning an any one of the four seats, they would be lucky to get them all at once because there may be local issues that we cannot know about at this time. They should feel quite pleased with the result of their efforts if they only manage three.
One of the third placed nationalists which came close to winning will be in the constituency in which I vote, Argyll and Bute, a three way and formerly a four way marginal.
Everything depends on where any lost LibDem votes go. The Conservative will certainly be in second place. Local information points tentatively to an SNP gain.
Not that that means it will necessarily be close, just difficult to predict the outcome, anywhere between hardly any change and secure SNP majority.
I wouldn’t bet on Glasgow East returning to Labour. The result of the bye-election itself creates other factors favourable to the SNP:
Loss of Labour morale; proof that the SNP is not a wasted vote and wont let the Tory in; party resources more thinly spread; backing a winner; gaining media attention; continuing trends of both parties; mould broken not protest vote; active MP trying harder etc.
I think that the voters in Glasgow East enjoyed kicking the government and will do it again.
Just for fun.
That’s not very scientific, poll based or numerate, but wait and see if I’m right.