New ICM/Guardian poll
I was hoping for a new Populus poll today, but instead we have the monthly ICM/Guardian poll. The topline figures with changes from their last poll a month ago are CON 41%(+2), LAB 27%(nc), LDEM 20%(+2). The poll was conducted on the 10th and 11th of July.
Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are up slightly at the expense of “others”, who are down on 12%. This is the lowest they’ve been since the Telegraph began printing details of MPs expenses, though it’s worth noting that ICM never recorded the very high levels of other support that some other pollsters did in the first place – they peaked at 15% in ICM, compared to 23% with YouGov and 30% (!) with ComRes. We should wait to see some declines elsewhere before concluding that the tide has turning.
The other questions in the poll looked at spending and the renewal of Trident. The Guardian’s report says that more than two-thirds of respondents wanted to see the government cut spending, and only 42% of people wanted to see Trident renewed.
Filed under: ICM, Voting Intention
Be interesting to see what Populus say but I think the scene is set.
It seems that the protest over expenses may be backing off
Tories above 40 was a bit unexpected. The last Yougov also had them on 40. It would useful to see what other pollsters show up in the next days/weeks before drwaing any conclusions as to the current state of the parties. I was rather please with my ever brilliant prediction though, I was only 1 point out on the parties.
The important thing here are the changes from the previous ICM poll. They suggest that the next Yougov poll will be Cons 41, Lab 24, Lib Dems 19/20.
I tend to pay more attention to YouGov and ICM myself but there should be a Populus out tonight for The Times.
Will it support the fall off in the OTHER vote is what I want to know.
I was expecting minor lab recovery to be at the expense of cons, seems like lab are/have scrabbled back to respectability but not by hurting cons, mebe UKIP voters really do all go back to cons afterall.
Interesting to see that the LAB vote is unchanged. I’m very intrigued to see the next few polls as this will surely begin to shape what we might expect to see next year.
My prediction for a 50-60 seat Conservative majority seems to be holding firm
Does anyone know what the breakdown is of ‘others’…. I am becoming more interested in them that the G2+1 which are staying pretty stable
The Guardian are leading with figures over nuclear
disarmament. I have to query their findings, considering that a
Populus poll last month had 48% of 2005 Labour voters said
it would make no difference to their voting intentions. 11%
said it would weaken their intention to vote Labour.
If this signals the direction of the post Euro vote/post expenses polls , then it looks much better for Cons than Labour.
Just as with the ICM poll on Afghanistan, and the one last week about public spending / taxes, it seems that if you define the question tightly enough you can squeeze out the useful but “undesirable” responses.
For example, here the Grauniad have deduced taht the lack of support for Trident means that people now oppose an independent nuclear deterrent. Actually, that does not necessarily follow.
I for one am in favour of Britain possessing an independent nuclear capability, but question whether Trident is necessaril;y the right solution for Britain.
Good results for the Tories and LDs. It’s very serious news for Labour if they get stuck at around 27% rather than moving up to 30%.
Surely much depends on the starting point for any comparison?In relation to the ICM poll at the end of May which put Labour in 3rd place on just 22% , Labour have gained 5% – the Tories 1 % – whilst the LibDems have lost 5%!
If the others figures are correct then it looks like the travel back has happened for the Conservatives. For Labour, the travel would have to be BNP/UKIP/Plaid/SNP. How much will move back is vital as it appears we have reached what might be termed the core vote. The LibDems in the high levels is the different factor here and if it continues I think it ends the days of parties winning at around 45%. It might explain why the LDs have been attacking Cameron more in the past few weeks – maybe they feel that they have to protect their position in their shire seats.
It might also explain the focus on issues like Aid as this is something that Cameron may hope will take votes away from the LDs. I wonder if we are in for vote shuffles between the three parties for a while as each tries to attenuate their messages to try and increase support.
The most significant outcome is that most voters support spending cuts. So the economy is still a dominant backdrop to overall support for all parties. Labour’s fortunes are still attached to economic recovery.
The other questions in the poll looked at spending and the renewal of Trident. The Guardian’s report says that more than two-thirds of respondents wanted to see the government cut spending, and only 42% of people wanted to see Trident renewed.
If memory serves me well, back in the ‘Eighties polls suggested only 28% of the population wanted to keep Northern Ireland as part of the UK. And the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is…?
Trident+ is the only solution on offer. When backs are to the wall people will understand this.
This is a good poll for the Tories. Over the last month, Labour have had a reasonable press (certainly by recent standards). Tory spending plans have been under more scrutiny, as has Andy Coulson. There have been no horror stories about the economy. Even Mandelson has been off our screens. And yet their share of the vote remains unchanged while the Tories gain two points.
Fluffy thoughts. Your logic is flawed. Trident and its successor make sense only as a “we’ll all go down together” if deterrence fails, or as a means of projecting power. The threats to our way of life today come from non-state agents or from states that do not have nuclear weapons. There is no particular reason why we should not be part of the US nuclear umbrella as is the rest of Nato. The sole exception – France – has gained nothing from being an independent nuclear power except an unwarranted place on the UN Security Council and this will be lost once the EU secures a place.
It would appear that the polls are gradually returning to the position before the MP expenses affair, but Labour have not recovered as much as Tories relative to levels seen in first quarter.
This weekend, it will be three months since Labour last scored 30% in any poll. Since the first Brown bounce collapsed in autumn 2008, Labour have only improved on their 2005 GE score (36%) in 3 polls, the last of which was on 16/11/08 (37%). The average over last 10 polls is only 24%, and over last 20 it is 23.05%. Next week, on the day of the Norwich North by-election, it will be exactly 18 months since Labour last led – by 1% at 38%/37% – in a single poll.
Conversely, apart from the ComRes poll on 31 May this year (30/22/18), and the Harris poll on 16 June (35/20/16), Conservatives have been at or above the 36% with which Labour won in 2005 consistently since October 2007, and for most of that period have been above 40%. So far this year 17 polls have shown Cons below 40% compared to 44 at 40% or more, of which 7 at 45% or more.
Only four polls this year (including that ComRs poll on 31 May) have shown the Con lead over Lab in single figures, compared to 5 with a lead of 20% or more. The average lead in the last 10 polls is 14.5%, and over the last 20 it is 14.1%. (The 10 before that had an average of 17.5%, but the 10 before those had an average of 13.2%).
For the LDs, while they had been in the mid-low teens in December / January, they appear to have settled at +/- 20%. This is below their actual result in 2005, but at a level which suggests that they could achieve 22-23% when the GE is eventually called.
We may yet see a last hurrah from the government, but it would seem that Labour are going to struggle to reach close to 30% at the next election, and may well drift back to low 20s. We could therefore see a close battle between Lab and LDs in terms of share of vote – but Lab would have to do significantly worse and LDs significantly better for the parties to get even close in terms of seats won.
Given the above, it is not surprising that the city and civil service, not to mention the general public, are all assuming that there will be a change of government within a year.
@Graham – apologies Graham but the poll you are talking about was likely a rogue (compare it to the poll averages for the period) and the starting place for labour is not actually that different than it is today.
Good result for Con’s and Lib Dems – 3rd place for Labour is getting closer
@Paul H-J – Good post
That Cameron will be PM in less than a year is now considered a done deal by almost everyone. The real question is how badly will Labour lose. The Weighted Moving Average is 39:25:19 so Labour support is holding firm but as noted previously I think that “Other” is more likely to swing to C than L.
Also there will be further ministerial resignations in the coming months (how many have resigned this year – 8,9? I’ve lost count) and morale in the Labour party is rock bottom. The 0% debacle is hurting badly and Darling is concluding, rightly, that he has to get a grip because no-one else is.
Good post Leslie.
Trident is argued for mainly as it helps some people pretend that we are still a major player in world events (like, that’s why we are in Afghanistan). The money wasted on Trident can be much better spent elsewhere; pensions, fuel poverty, jobs, lowering national debt…
@Jack
“The money wasted on Trident can be much better spent elsewhere; pensions, fuel poverty, jobs, lowering national debt.”
And also a much more effective conventional defense capability. Thanks for your comment!
Leslie
Liberals increase probably due to Nick Clegg: has ‘come out’ more into real issues and made these his own, not least Gukhas and now Afganistan (moving the news agenda in his direction in some cases, which isnt bad for a Liberal leader post Kennedy frankly).
Paul H-J: good posting, but can we really expect Labour to drop in their core vote to such a position where the Liberals overtake them in the national share of the vote? I don’t see it personally because Brown has spent much time reinforcing that core base around the country…”labour investments…” artifical debate etc helps illustrate this.
Kier, Thank you.
NBeale, – I agree that Darling seems to be the only one in the cabinet who has any idea how bad the position is and that there is nothing to be gained by pretending otherwise.
It may of course be that after a decade of being kept in the dark, most Ministers have no clue as to the connection between the PSBR and their own departmental spending allocation.
It will be interesting to see whether the emergence of a back-bone will help Darling retain his seat. I don’t know whether there is a precedent for a sitting Chancellor to be defeated in his own constituency, but it certainly has not happened in the past 50 years.
So, it’s all down to what happens to the ‘other’ votes … Granted, it’s difficult to see many of them going back to Labour (at least, among the ‘certain to votes’) but I think it’s still too premature to be saying that the Tories will win the election. Yes, it’s very easy for Labour to lose it – but winning is a much tougher matter, and the yawning chasm of a hung parliament still seems to me to be the most likely outcome.
Paul H-J
I don’t think a sitting Chancellor has ever lost their seat. I can find two 19th century ones who lost the seat they were sitting for, but it was in the era of general elections taking several weeks and people standing for multiple constituencies, so they were both returned for alternative seats. I can’t find any Chancellors who were properly ousted!
Dean,
Look at the bald numbers for votes received rather than %.
1997: Lab 13.5m; Con 9.6m; LD 5.2m
2001: Lab 10.7m; Con 8.4m; LD 4.8m
2005: Lab 9.6m; Con 8.8m; LD 6.0m
The Lab / LD gap in votes has reduced from 8.3m in 1997 to 5.9m in 2001 and just 3.6m in 2005.
The gap is reducing at a rate of 2.3m per election, so on that basis, LDs will not overtake Lab this time. But it is not inconceivable. Twice before, the Liberals / Alliance reduced the gap between themselves and Labour by more than 3.6m.
From 1970 to Feb 1974, Lab dropped 0.4m and Libs added 4.0m to give 4.4m reduction;
and
From 1979 to 1983, Lab dropped 3.0m and Alliance added 3.5m to give 6.5m reduction and create a Lab/LD lead of just 0.7m votes – less than the Lab/Con lead in 2005.
In order to overtake Lab in terms of votes LD need to add about 2-2.5m votes if Lab lose up to 1m votes.
If however Lab lose more than 2m (and Cons lost 4.4m between 1992 and 1997), then the additional votes LDs need are correspondingly reduced.
In 1997, Cons lost about 31% of their 1992 votes. If the same ratio were applied to Lab vote in 2005 (which is consistent with current polls) that would put Lab at around 6.6m votes, so LDs only need to add about 650k votes net to be ahead..
Those are the mechanics. Do I think it will happen ? No.
The main reason being that in 2005 LDs won 528k votes in Scotland and came within 400k of Lab, who fell below 1m in Scotland for only the second time since 1935 – the previous time being 1983 when Alliance took just under 700k, and the only other time since 1931 when Liberals had been within 0.5m votes of Lab in Scotland. While I can see Lab vote falling further in Scotland next time – perhaps by as much as 200k, I believe the LD vote will also fall in Scotland, and maybe by as much as 250k. They will obviously need to increase their vote in England by up to 1m to compensate for that, which I cannot see on current trends.
Realistically, I expect the result next year to be:
Con: 10.5-11.0m up approx 2m
Lab: 7.0-7.5m down approx 2.25m
LD: 5.0-5.5m down approx 0.75m
Others 2.5-3.0m up about 0.75m
Obviously plenty of room for movement, subject to polls and turnout, but the above translates to roughly C 41; Lab 27; LD 20 – and what a remarkable coincidence that is.
Amazing how the polls change from one day to another.
A little spin here a little spin there a new initiative a new policy and hey presto we are vinning, we are loosing. Just shows how gullible the electorate is.
Interesting post Paul H-J.
My own prediction (since last year) is for a Conservative majority of 53 seats. I can’t see it being a landslide based on recent polls.
Your prediction of C 41:LA 27:LD 20 gives a majority of 72 seats.
A drop from 36% to 24% for Labour based on the turnout number being the same would see a Labour fall in votes of 3.2 million.
I think there is a strong possibility Labour will get about 6.4 million votes. The Lib Dems should gain at least 5.4 million votes. The Cons should receive at least 9.4 million votes.
@COLIN 1.23pm
Colin-could you find a name which shows that you aren’t me?
thanks
@ Keir,
It may well be that there was something a bit rogueish about the late May ICM poll – but others said the same thing about the Guardian’s June poll when it gave Labour 27%.
Of course, if the latter suggestion is true and the real Labour level was more like 25% a month ago ,perhaps the July ICM poll does reflect an underlying rise in Labour support as well as for the other two parties!
Graham,
The convention is to count rise/fall in the vote from the last poll by the same company, or the last poll commissioned by the paper. You can make the polls say anything you like if you change the terms of reference enough.
If you take the starting point from 1996 then Labour have lost nearly 30% according to this poll – ouch!
Neil,
It’s simply a matter of trying to establish where we are based on the best evidence available. Trends do require some analysis, which itself sometimes demands delving a bit further than the headline figures.
Andrew,
It depends what you mean by a “landslide”. A shift of over 100 seats in a single election would generally meet that description, so for Cons to gain a majority of 1 would effectively be a landslide. If you are thinking in terms of a Con majority over 100, then that implies 375 seats – a gain of 177 from 2005 – or 161 on the notional results for the new boundaries.
However, even if you require a Con maj of 100 for your landslide, this poll is not far off it – just adjust the figures to C 43, Lab 27, LD 20 and hey presto.
One cannot predict a landslide confidently since it only takes minor changes for for the numbers to shoot up – or down. Plus, the swingometer, while fun, cannot take regional variations into account. As the polls currently stand, a landslide is at least as equally possible as a hung parliament, probably more so.
One reason I point people to the number of votes as well as share is that we will not have anything remotely like “Uniform National Swing”.
There will be a fall in the total Labour vote. If Labour drop from 9.6m to c7.3m, that works out at about 3500 per seat. Likewise a Con increase of about 2m is around 3100 per seat.
UNS would suggest any Lab seat with a majority of under 6500 over Cons will fall. That would indeed give Cons somewhere in the region of 150 gains and a majority of about 50-60.
But actually, given the differential turnout which occurred in 2005 – whereby turnout was much lower in Labour’s heartlands relative to the “marginals” – it is more likely that we will see Lab vote drop by only a few hundred in some seats, and by 5000 or more in others.
Quite where Labour lose their votes will have as much impact as where Tories can add them.
The only things I am prepared to predict with confidence are:
(a) Cameron will be PM after the next election; and
(b) it will be a very interesting night.
[(a) will happen even if Cons fail to reach 326 seats as Clegg would be nuts to keep Brown in power, assuming he could.]
Thanks again for an interesting post Paul H-J. I am absolutely fascinated by the statistics of our GE system and agree with your point (b) – it is going to be an incredible run-up to the GE and a very interesting night.
Your point about relatively small shifts in opinion polls leading to wild variations in results is also valid. A 41:27:20 split would give a Con maj of 68 but a relatively small shift to 44:23:21 would turn that to 190!
I agree that a Tory majority of 50 would be an incredible result from the last GE but for me a landslide means 150 seat maj or more.
Paul H-J
Fantastic postings.
I disagree with your point a however- it isnt all that cut and dry. Because when you wrote “(a) will happen even if Cons fail to reach 326 seats as Clegg would be nuts to keep Brown in power, assuming he could.”
I would point out that the Liberals deal breaker will be some kind of PR voting system or federalism- and no Conservative leader will ever EVER introduce any of that. Clegg certainly wont be lending support to D.C in the even of a hung parliament that is in my opinion for sure.
Poupuls Prediction:
Con 42
Lab 25
Lib 21
GE Prediction: (I will be right because I’m Brilliant at Poll Predictions – due to my “superb political emotional intelligence” )
Con 44/45
Lab 26
Lib 21
Mean’t Populus, sorry….
I’m getting worried. No doubt I’ll be out trying to sway people from a wasted Tory vote. Their latest policy on Aid has enraged me so much >:(
If it were a hung parliament, Tories would be (presumably) the biggest party, but would refuse the LibDems’ demands for electoral changes.
Labour would refuse as well, I’d guess, leaving Tories to govern with minor parties if possible, or perhaps call another election to boost their numbers in the style of 74?
Well I said there would be more resignations, but even I didn’t expect another one today. Brown treats Health and Defence with contempt – so people who understand, quit.
NBeale,
Have you noticed how it is the Ministers in the Lords who are quitting now ?
Since they don’t need to spend more time with their constituencies nursing their majorities, what does that tell us about morale at the heart of the government ?
New Labour will be lucky to hold onto 30% share of the vote at the next GE, or so Paul H-J’s stats tell me.
Further on this poll, isnt this the first time since early June (4th?) that the Liberals managed 20% in the polls (of any major pollster)
Richard Manns- that might be one course of action, but I personally think that there could be much to gain politically from having a minority government (of any party) after 2010- it might enable all kinds of reforms, and consolidations of our abused constitutional customs…
Dean,
The only way that Cameron will not be PM after the next election is if:
(a) Brown retains a Labour majority (very unlikely); or
(b) Labour, although short of a majority are by far the largest party and Brown can either cobble a coalition with minor parties (eg SDLP, Plaid etc) or survive as a minority administration; (unlikely) or
(c) Lab + LD gives a majority – and Clegg is willing to support Brown continuing as PM – a reckless stance for LDs..
(c) could theoretically happen even if Con have more seats than Lab.
Cameron does not need LDs to support him should he fall short of a majority so long as Lab + LD is less than 325. The key figure for Cameron is 300. That is because NI + SNP/Plaid + sundry others are likely to be at least 25 (if not 30+) which would deny Lab+LD a majority.
If Con are over 300, then in all probability, Lab will be below 275 unless LDs have done v. badly.
Even if the figures are C 290, Lab 280, LD 50, others 30, it would be reckless for Clegg to keep Brown in No 10. In that case Clegg will be setting LD MPs up for slaughter since a further election is likely within a year, and the public will not forgive LDs for inflicting more uncertainty on the country.
It only makes sense for LDs to support a minority Lab govt if Lab have more MPs than Con and a Lab-LD coalition could likely survive more than a few months. That realistically needs Lab to be at 300 or more with LDs on 35+ such that there is a working majority over 20.
Remember that a repeat election within a few months, while putting all parties under financial pressure, could give LDs a bonus in terms of seats won from both Con and Lab as they will have much better information as to where to concentrate their limited resources.
FWIW, I don’t think any of the above will apply since if Cons have made 75+ gains needed to get from 214 to 290, Lab will likely have fallen below 280, and possibly lower. That would have happened with a Con lead of 6-7% as opposed to the 14% current average lead.
Graham has a point in that the 27% in the previous Guardian ICM for Labour was called, probably fairly, as overstating their support but within moe by many on here.
The next poll will tell us if there has indeed been a small rise for Labour as well from others.
Also, I was surprised others are as low as 12% and would not be surprised to see this over 15 in the next few polls.
PAUL H J,
I don’t think there is any way that Plaid or SDLP would help to install a minority Tory Govt. Beyond that, would the SNP wish to be seen by the Scottish electorate as having helped to hand power to the Tories? I can think of nothing more likely to guarantee that Labour regains the political initiative in Scotland!
@Dean Thomson
I far prefer our adversarial politics; politics is a trade and we pay them in votes, and to quote Adam Smith:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”
Cameron could take note (and probably has) of the words of Churchill when a less adversarial hemi-cycle was proposed for the rebuilding of the House of Commons:
“…we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”
Brown has zero management skills – there is no way he could ever lead a coalition. He is also gratuitously insulting to the Lib Dems. Betfair Spread Betting gives a 25% chance of a hung parliament (personally I think that’s much too high – nearer 10% I’d say) and an 87% chance of the Conservatives having the most seats. With a 7% chance of a Labour Majority this means that there is a 76% chance (19/25) if there is a hung parliament that the conservatives will have the largest no of seats.
PS Betfair also gives the Tories a 92% chance of taking Norwich North. Brown could be gone by Christmas.
Graham,
Did I suggest Plaid or SNP would openly support Cameron ?
The point is that if Lab + LD is below 325, then Brown would not only have to broaden his coalition, he would be doing so from a position where he was not leader of the largest party in Parliament.
Also, I think you misunderstand how a minority administration – as opposed to a coalition formed to create a majority – actually works. The SNP have experience of this in Scotland, and I doubt Salmond would have any problems with SNP MPs abstaining, or voting against a Lab-LD coalition, in order to allow Cameron to form a government.
Finally, I can’t see why a Con government in London (with or without SNP suppport) would help Lab in Scotland. The SNP would probably point to the fact that Scotland did not vote for a Tory government and that adds to their argument for independance. In that context, the SNP would prefer to have Cameron rather than Brown as PM. Only a Lab government in London would allow Lab to win back the initiative in Scotland.
Apart from which, I believe the debate is purely academic as there is most likely to be a Con majority.
@Paul H-J
“Even if the figures are C 290, Lab 280, LD 50, others 30, it would be reckless for Clegg to keep Brown in No 10. In that case Clegg will be setting LD MPs up for slaughter since a further election is likely within a year, and the public will not forgive LDs for inflicting more uncertainty on the country.”
I’m not sure about this. if Labour could count on 330 votes I think that they could stay in power for 5 years as a minority government. There would be little incentive for the LDs to vote against Labour and defeat the coalition for at least 2, probably 3 years, in their own self-interest.
I can certainly see a situation where the LDs would support a minority Labour government. Philosophically, the LDs are closer to Labour than to the Tories. Only the current administration’s obsession with centralisation and erosion of civil liberties has masked that. If Nick Clegg was offered the Home Office and Vince cable was offered the Chancellorship it would be very tempting for them.
I nice balanced non-opionated post from NBEALE.
Not the place to say what you think of GBs management skills.
Do we want to discuss Camerons management style on this thread as well?
@ JIM JAM
Perhaps you missed the recent remarks made by the GOAT Lord Malloch-Brown who has just resigned?
He said that Gordon Brown’s government is more “chaotic” than many administrations in the developing world,.
Lord Malloch-Brown, who quits his ministerial post this month, told colleagues he had seen better “strategic thinking” in Latin America and southeast Asia than at No 10.
Jim Jam,
While NBeale may appear partisan in his comment, it is pertinent to the question of whether Brown could in fact secure a coalition.
He appears to have enough difficulty keeping Labour members in his government. That does not bode well for trying to hold together a coalition with cabinet members who are not beholden to him for their seats in Parliament, and may have more to gain by precipitating a further election.
In reality, in a hung parliament, Clegg could play his hand to force a change of leader on the Labour party as the price of his support. What choice would they have ? To not do so would be to waste a major opportunity, which is why Clegg would be foolhardy to prop up a Brown (as opposed to Labour) government.
That is why I am confident that the only scenario in which Brown will still be PM after the election is if Labour somehow retain enough seats to have a majority, or as good as.
322 seats would probably suffice since SF rule themselves out and Brown could rely on one or more minor Party / ind. MPs to abstain. But then, same holds true for Conservatives.
It is only when one or other party is in the 290-320 range that it gets tricky – do they don’t they embrace Clegg ? It is unlikely that a formal coalition with a patchwork of NI / Nationalist parties would work, though if SNP make it to double figures that could give them extra leverage. But if both Con and Lab are between 275-300 then the fun really starts.
Leslie: “I can certainly see a situation where the LDs would support a minority Labour government. Philosophically, the LDs are closer to Labour than to the Tories”
I strongly disagree leslie- have you read the Orange Book? The current Liberal leadershp (Clegg, Hune, Cable…etc) all contributed to the Orange Book, which amongst other policies, sought to defend and win back to liberalism the idea of ‘economic liberalism’ – something which is very Thatcherite.
Ideologically the current leadership of the Orange Book is hardly closer to Labour than the Conservatives, especially in economic priorities.
Take a look at Cleggs major policies before the recession ruined everything, he was advocating major tax cuts for families and businesses! Hardly a Labourite notion at all!
Clegg ideologically could be very comfortable with a Conservative – Liberal coalition (where it not for their federalist and PR demands).
Dean-it’s all a matter of degree. Get real. And LD who suggested supporting Tories would be a national laughing stock.
LDs would support Labour as Labour is less rightwing than the Tories. Forget Thatcher, we are not talking about labels then. It’s about now. And the parties are like this–Tories (very right wing), New Labour (right wing-they got into power by driving the Tories away from the Centre voters). LD (centre, but they don’t know it).
So LDs would more happily support Labour as they are less rightwing that the Conservatives.
Sorry Jack but you clearly havent read the Orange Book (which is the faction within the LibDems that Clegg, Hune, Cable all come from), there aint no way those three particular men (Hune, possibly less on the right than the others within the grouping) would support a Labour government over a centre-right Conservative party (and your talking jibberish if you think that the current tory party is “very right wing”, I think its you that needs to get real).
Besides, it would be political suicide for the Liberals to support a Labour government given its unpopularity- even if it managed to survive as the largest party in a hung parliament thatd probably more to do with the poor 2005 starting point in most constits for the tories than any real endorsement for labour).
Your on cloud nine if you honestly believe any liberal leader would opt to keep this shower in rather than support a centre-right Cameron gov.
Except (by extrapolation) the Other vote, the changes in party support reported in this poll are within sampling error. And we expected a falling away in Other support now that they are no longer getting the publicity of elections. One question – there is no adequte precedent – is whether the Greens and UKIP willl benefit from publicity during the general Election campagin, as the LibDems tend to do, or whether they will suffer becuase the General Election is seen as too important for what many electors will see as a protest vote.
We really do need breakdowns of the Other percentages into Plaid/SNP, Green and UKIP. Not least we want to know WHICH Other parties are sliiping since June – not least in connection with the Norwich by-election.
The Times had an article this week about how the Tories are talking to the Civil Servants. One wonders what good this will do given Colin’s report that Lord Maddox-Brown says that strategic thinking in the UK is worse than in many Latin American and South East asian countries – a view which I am pretty sure will be right given the ludicrous acceptance of gospel in this country of the demonstrably failed economic philosophy of laiisez faire (but I am not, contrary to a recent suggestion on this site, a Marxist or anything like it – mechanistic all-pervasive control systems have equally been seen as appalling failures). If the Conservatives “go native” with the Westminster mandarains, how will they do any better? And isn’t this what voters are seeing when they flock to minor parties?
Many of the Other votes in the elections last month came from Labour, who should be disappointed that they are not getting them back.
PAUL HJ,
I was not referring to any open declaration of support by Plaid or the SNP for a Cameron Govt , but I was addressing the possibility of the SNP in particular being inclined to facilitate such an administration by abstention on key votes.
It is my firm belief that many SNP voters – particularly those with a former Labour background – would expect their party to do everything possible to deny office to a Tory Govt. Were it to fail to do this, I feel the SNP would suffer significant adverse electoral consequences – many former disillusioned Labour voters would return to their former home and see the SNP as ‘Tartan Tories’..I will be surprised if the electoral debacle suffered in 1979 – when the party joined forces with the Tories to topple the Callaghan Govt – has been forgotten.
There are major obstacles to the LDs propping up either party. I see them as a very Big Tent party and being a LibDem means very different things in different parts of the country. Propping up Labour would hurt them severely in the West Country and SE England. Propping up the Tories would hurt them in the urban conurbations, and in Scotland.
The problem the LDs have is that although they can never admit it, there only conceivable route to power is in coalition. So I am sure they’ve given it a hell of a lot of thought, but they are damn well not going to talk about in public until after the election. Whichever way they went, I would see them losing big slabs of their support – it just depends whether the credibility that comes with office would reward them enough to suffer that fracture.
The split of vote to achive Paul H-J’s Con 290, Lab 280, LD 50 scenario would be 39:33:20 – An average Tory lead of 6 points and a Labour recovery of 6-8 points.
What are the views of the likelihood of that?
Personally I think that would represent the very best Labour could hope for.
Incidentally why is it allowed for Labour to have almost as many seats as the Tories with 6 points less votes!?
Andrew – I think a 6pt Tory lead would deliver a small majority for the cons, UNS is useful but misleading.
Andrew -
I was always under the assumption that the Conservatives needed a 9 point lead to gain a majority.
The face that both parties would gain a similar number of seats with such figures is down to a number of factors. There is a disparity in seat sizes which, at the moment, benefits Labour (I think this is being sorted out to a degree in the 2010 boundary changes).
Furthermore, voters in Cons seats are more likely to vote which increases their vote and turnout while still just returning the one seat.
Indeed, it is possible for Labour to gain a majority even if the Tories have a lead over them.
Jim Jam
I have ran 39:33:20 (6 point tory lead) through the predictor here and it gives a Hung Parliament – Tories 39 seats short and 33 seats short based on the same assumptions at Electoral Calculus’s website.
Not sure if they could generate a majority on a 6 point lead (would welcome any views) whereas Labour on the same results (but reversed) would be in with a majority of 98 seats!!!
‘NEIL A
There are major obstacles to the LDs propping up either party. I see them as a very Big Tent party and being a LibDem means very different things in different parts of the country. ‘
Yep–it’s the I’ll vote for LD as it is the best chance to stop Con/Lab in my area. This again is the issue; some vote for LD because of policies but many vote for them out of antipathy to the most likely winner in a seat. It’s a natural extension of FPTP system (let’s have the Australian voting system!).
Graham,
I had forgotten the Scottish Labour ability to bear grudges !
Gosh if people still think the SNP betrayed Scotland by bringing the 1979 election forward by five months, when will they ever get over the fact that Maggie is no longer PM and the current mess is down to more than a decade of a Scottish Labour Chancellor ?
Salmond’s SNP administration in Holyrood would have collapsed long ago without tacit, and at times overt, support from Goldie. I thought most Scots understood that.
Salmond may be a ruthless operator, but he will see no disadvantage to his party from returning the favour at Westminster if need be. What is far less likely is that he would provide even tacit support to enable Brown to form a minority government.
Andrew / Danboy,
I would agree with JimJam that if on the day Cons have a 6 pt lead over Lab, they are likely to scrape home with a smallish majority.
That will be because to get bak to low/mid 30s, Labour will have enthused their support in their “heartlands” to come out and vote, pushing up its majorities in places like Sheffield and Newcastle, but without winning any new seats. Meanwhile, Lab will have lost a swathe of southern English seats, some by close margins.
The supposed “bias” in the system has far more to do with differential turnout than it does with demographic changes. Yes, there is a general population drift from urban seats (Lab) to suburban seats (Con) which needs correcting every decade or so, but I believe the rate of such change is nowhere near as pronounced these days as it was in the 40 years after the war.
Andrew,
I am one of the minority non-(blatant) Tories on this site so it gives me no pleasure to give the view that the Cons will perform well ahead of UNS.
The ‘chance to kick the Government out’ message will resonate more in marginals and Tory resources (more than anyone else of course) will be targeted.
Whether 6pts would be quite enough, maybe not but I would place a large bet on the Elec Calc 33 short being at least 20 out.
Having said that 33 for Labour would appear unlikey even if sub 40 for the Tories is a strong possibility as they appear to enjoy little positive support amongst swing voters.
Here’s an interesting one. 1979’s results of Con 43.9, Lab 36.9, LD 13.8 gave a 43 seat majority. If those shares were allocated today it would lead to a Hung Parliament with Con short of a majority by 7 seats.
1983 would give a Con Majority of 68 today (vs 144)
1987 would give a Con Majority of 20 today (vs 102)
1992 would give a hung parliament with Con short of 10 (vs 21 seat majority)
It seems today’s system is badly skewed against the Conservatives?
Andrew,
Or one could equally argue that the boundaries in the 80s were badly skewed to Cons.
Certainly that was the view Labour Central Office took under John Smith when they organised their Agents around the country to challenge the Commissioners proposals and put forward their own suggestions to achieve the 1997 boundaries which have proved so favourable to Lab since.
Perhaps CCO had grown complacent since each review after the war improved the Con position.
As to the boundaries for the next election, please remember that, despite the detailed research undertaken by Rallings & Thrasher [whose figures are deemed "official"]; Anthony on this site, and others, these figures are only “notional”. It may well be that some of the new seats (or those which have major revisions) act in quite different ways than the notional figures suggest.
Andrew the system is not biased against the tories. It is the reverse. What you have to remember is that there are to two left wing parties.
The left wing vote is split. So it is not enough just to say the tories are the largest party, so should have a majority, what if they are the largest party but have 35% of the vote, while the two left wing parties have a combined total of well over 50%.
For instance in 1979 the labour + liberal voted added up to to just over 50%. Yet the one right wing party got just 43 % of the vote yet as it was the largest party it was given a stinking majority for the right.
The system is actually biased in favour of the right, as the splitting of the left wing votes mean the right can win elections when the people want a left wing government. As has happened many, many times. The left has gotten well over 50% of the vote in many elections and still lost due to a split vote, and then the tories complain they have still not got enough seats.
Is it really fair to have a tory government with a majority of 150, when over 50% of the public vote for left wing parties.
Tactical voting, and targeting of seats, over the years has dampened down the affect of the split left wing vote.
Paul H-J. What happened in the 1997 review (and previous ones) wasn’t so much that the Conservatives were complacent, but that they left it up to local Conservative associations to respond to boundary reviews.
In practice this meant you could have two Conservative associations arguing with each other, and rather than trying to build the best possible seats – you got Tory associations in safe seats trying to argue for boundaries that would make them even safer.
In contrast, for that boundary review Labour organised a proper co-ordinated response to boundary proposals, so ended up with better boundaries (that said, yo u shouldn’t emphasise it *that* much, at the end of the day, there is only so much the parties can do to influence the decisions).
On notional figures, all the various versions are notional, including Rallings and Thrasher. It’s just what the result would notionally have been were votes counted on those bounaries. None are really “official” – the electoral commission or government don’t appoint anyone to do them – Rallings and Thrasher’s figures are, however, used by the broadcasters and are most widely recognised, so they will be the ones regarded as the figures of record as it were.
As it happens, the methods R&T used and the methods I used were almost identical (the main differences are, if I recall correctly, that in multi-member council wards I took the top vote for each party, while Rallings and Thrasher took the average vote, and I used London Assembly constituency figures for London, while R&T used Borough elections), so the figures will normally be pretty close. Electoral Calculus used a different method, so you’ll find some sharper differences there.
Dirty Euro,
You may well be right that both Labour and Liberals are “left wing” parties, but the truth is that the LDs pretend they are a centre party not a left wing party, and appeal to the voters on that basis. I think in general the average left-right split in the electorate is around 50/50 with a fair proportion of the right-leaning voters giving their vote to the Liberal Democrats. I can assure you that Torbay, Yeovil, SE Cornwall and many other rural LD seats do not have “Left wing” electorates.
If Labour and the LDs were truly of a similar view they could merge and, according to you, dominate British politics for the next 1000 years. Of course that wouldn’t happen because half of the current LD seats would turn Tory because they wouldn’t ever vote for a party that was socialist in outlook.
What you are really arguing for, it seems to me, is proportional representation. That’s fine, but you need to present your argument that way, rather than in terms of “bias” in favour of the Tories. In straightforward terms, the system is without question “biased” against the Tories but the reasons for this are mostly structural and very hard to correct. It is interesting to note that, apart from possibly wanting to alter some boundaries, the Tories almost never complain about the bias and are the strongest supporters of the current system.
Neil A – Hear ! Hear !
Anthony.
Thanks for the clarification on notional methodology.
On the 1997 review: – Yes, CCO left it to local associations to prepare submissions to the Boundary Commission – as they had traditionally done and in accordance with the autonomy accorded local associations. After all, many are fiercely independent (and selfish – hence the attempt by safe seats to make themseves even safer ). But they were complacent in not responding to the obvious co-ordination being put in by Labour and at least providing advice and guidance to associations on how to co-ordinate responses in a given area / region. Hence that review was the least favourable to Conservatives for decades. That does not seem to have been the case for the current review.
Of course one by-product of new boundaries is that Constituency Associations need to be reformed in line with these, and this can lead to yet another set of tensions – over resources and personalities. This applies to all parties. Which may explain why the first campaign in some new seats does not go as the notional figures suggest.
Personally, just a hunch, but I think we may hear a lot of grumbling after the next GE about how unfair the new boundaries are and how it took fewer Con votes to elect an MP than for Lab or LD. Of course it will have nothing to do with the boundaries and more to do with differential turnout. It is particulalrly true when an election is close since the there are far more votes garnered by the losing party in the marginals which did not produce an MP.
I fail to see what the LD vote has to do with it. If the LD vote ceased to exist and the main vote went 45% Con, 45% Lab (and 10% others) this would still give a Labour majority and 344 vs 279 seats.
To my mind an identical share of the vote should give an identical number of seats – who votes LD is irrelevant.
Anyone who thinks that the LibDems are leftwing need to read up more on the current leadership. Pick up the Orange Book- in it Cable defends the need for free markets, economic liberal practise with some social liberal policies (outside of the economic aspects) to counterbalance any possible inequity.
What on earth is left wing about that? Goodness, I as a Scottsh Con find it quite attractive.
Paul HJ –
This time round the Conservatives did have a properly co-ordinated response, organised by Roger Pratt at CCHQ, who by all accounts seems to have done a good at it.
Just a thought but doesn’t FPTP hugely favour parties that are regionally based against those that are national? To take an extreme example, if there were only two parties, and every constituency had the same proportion supporting each party, then a 50.1%:49.9% vote split would mean that every single MP would be from the first party.
The current voting system positively encourages tribal voting, seat targetting and policies that are determined more by geography than by equality.
That’s true but it shouldn’t influence the number of seats given a set vote split depending on the lead party.
In other words 40%:30% Labour/Conservative should give Labour the same number of seats (give or take) as 40%/30% Conservative/Labour would to the Conservatives.
Leslie,
That is precisely why SNP, and to a lesser extent Plaid, have been more successful than LDs in transforming votes into MPs. And also why Greens, UKIP and BNP will always struggle to get anyone elected to Westminster, however well they do in Euro elections or local councils.
It is also the reason for the supposed bias against Conservatives in the current boundaries.
Basically, regional variations in support mean that Labour no longer “wastes” votes in the English shire counties, where LDs are main challenge to Con, while Cons still have a lot of “wasted” votes in semi-urban marginals.
Both parties also “waste” surplus votes in their “heartlands”. Having 85% of the vote in a seat is no better than 50.1% in terms of number of seats won.
Put another way, Labour could add 1m votes – 10,000 in each of 100 seats – in the shire counties and not pick up a single extra MP in return. But the same is true of Conservatives in those self-same seats !
Vice-versa in various metropolitan / mining areas.
As to your last point – the purpose of an MP is to represent the locality which elected him. It is thus logical that candidates will tailor their message to the region in which they stand. The more homogenous the area, the more “tribal” the voting pattern.
What has “equality” got to do with it ?
Andrew –
That would only be true if both parties had their support spread evenly (but not uniformly) across the country. That is evidently not the case as any political map of the UK will quickly demonstrate. It matters not if the base unit for the map is by:
Polling District
Ward
District Council
Parliamentary Constituency
County Council
Euro- Region (*)
There will be separate bands / patches of red in;
- central Scotland,
- the North East,
- across the Pennines
- West Midlands
- S Wales
- London
Outside these bands you will find only isolated pockets of red representing urban areas.
The rest of the England is basically blue with a large splash of gold in the SW and the odd blob here and there. [Though there is more gold, with a hint of red, interspersed with the blue at Ward / Council level.]
In Scotland, the bits one would expect to be blue are either yellow (SNP) or gold (LD). In Wales, there is more of a patchwork with the rural parts held by Plaid, LD and Con.
Individual seat boundaries make only a minor difference. The system we have is far preferable to any list based PR system which puts power to select who sits in Parliament in the hands of party machines and not the electors. If in doubt, just look at the Euro results.
(*) For Euro regions use colour of party which came first – but use 1999 or 2004 results since 2009 results are somewhat lopsided. If you go back to 1979-1994 Euro constituencies you will of course see the same pattern.
@ Paul H-J
You seem adament that the LDs will ovetake Labour, and whislt the gap may becopme closes, I personally think this will be becuase of Labour loses rather than LD gains and the LDs will see their votes drop from the Last election as their performance was bloated by anger over the Iraq War and students determined to oppose Tuition fees.
Ashley I’m nt so sure the Liberal overall vote share will drop greatly from 2005 for the following reasons:
* the local election results indicate only a net 1 councellor was lost for the Liberal Democrats; therefore any votes lost in; say; Devon was compensated for elswhere- while still making signifcant breakthroughs in Bristol.
*the euros show the liberals holding onto their MEP from Scotland with only a minor drop in their vote share (dropped by only 1.60%)
However they do have problems, particularly in compensating elsewhere in the UK for potential losses in Scotland, but again the most recent poll on Electoral Calculus database shows they can hold onto 11 MPs from Scotland with just 16% share of the vote.
@ JIM Jam,
I tend to think that a 6% lead would not be enough to produce a Tory overall majority. It is worth recalling that in 1992 a lead of 7.6% gave Major a majority of just 21. Had the lead been 6% the Tories would have been in a minority of 10 or 12! I am sure Kinnock’s performance at the Sheffield rally was crucial there.
@ PAUL H J
I do not doubt that Salmond might be inclined to return the favour to the Tories in the event of a Hung Parliament. My point is that many SNP supporters in the wider electorate would be repelled by it – and switch back to Labour as a direct consequence, and cost the SNP seats.. Lest you think otherwise, I am not a Scot – I live in East Anglia – and have no links of any kind with the Scottish Labour Party. I do, however, have a good memory!
Ashley,
Not sure how you deduce I am adamant that LDs will overtake Lab. I presume you are referring to my post on 14th July. If so, may I refer you to this quote therein:
“Those are the mechanics. Do I think it will happen ? No. “
I have refrained ( no please do not all cheer!!) from comment on this poll until Populus produced their monthly poll but where on earth is it?
Have they ever been this late before?
Anthony,
Good morning, have you had any information about any polls coming our way this weekend ? There does seem to be a real shortgage at the moment. We are halfway through the month and have only seen ICM to date. Do you think we see a big splurge of them next week around the time of the Norwich By Election ?
@ Paul H-J – thanks for explaining it, but I still can’t get my head around why an equal share of the votes favours Labour so much unles the boundary commission has given them an advantage because of the LD vote
@ Wayne – I was wondering the same thing. We have only seem one poll in over 3 weeks.
Andrew,
This may help.
Let us say that there are 10 seats, and 30 votes in each seat.
Each of 3 parties A, B & C has 100 votes distibuted across the 10 seats.
Party A has 10 votes in each of the 10 seats.
Party B has 20 votes in each of seats 1-3, 10 votes in seat 4, 5 votes in seats 5-10
Party C has 0 votes in seats 1-3, 10 in seat 4, and 15 in each of seats 5-10.
All three parties have 100 votes. Who wins the most seats ?
Just to save anyone who is arithmetically challenged the trouble…
C gets 6 seats
B gets 3 seats.
The remaining seat is decided by drawing lots / tossing coins between all three candidates.
Good ilustration Paul!
So if I understand correctly the Labour vote is more polarised than the Tories across the country?
Indeed !
The Boundary Commission has got nothing to do with it unless they deliberately produce a bunch of seats with 25 voters and others with 35 voters, or draw the borders in peculiar ways in order to favour one party or another.
Incidentally, the term “gerrymander” derives from a US congressional district created by an offcial (called Gerald) in the shape of a salamander ( a long thin lizard with short legs and a long culing tail) so as to carve out a number of pockets of one political inclination when if the area had been cut into 3/4 neat chunks that party would not have won a single seat.
So how long a summer holiday do polling companies take?
@Paul H-J
“The Boundary Commission has got nothing to do with it unless they deliberately produce a bunch of seats with 25 voters and others with 35 voters”
In fact, because of the rules that they are given, they do do this.
Scotland and Wales are automatically given a minimum number of seats, which currently means that their average seat size is smaller, and as these areas tended to vote Labour, this gives Labour proportionately more seats.
Also, the boundary reviews are based on factual (but necessarily old) data, and this currently biases the MP numbers towards the inner cities, which are often-Labour supporting.
The system is based on voters, not votes. There is a strong negative correlation between the numbers of Labour votes cast and the %age turnout in a seat, so Labour MPs tend to have fewer “votes” for them than a similarly safe Tory or LibDem MP.
Jack & Wayne. ICM and YouGov’s polls normally continue as usual through the summer. Populus has in the past sometimes skipped their August poll – no idea what they are doing this year, whether they have skipped July too, or moved it later in the month. MORI I expect will do their normal monthly poll.
Richard Manns – the minimum number of seats for Scotland and Wales doesn’t actually have any effect. In Scotland, it was abolished before the last election and Scotland given new constituencies based on the English quota.
In Wales the statutory minimum number of seats is 35… but they have 40 seats anyway (and the quota at each review is based on the existing number of seats) so the minimum doesn’t come into play.
Wales, Scotland, NI and England each have their own quota, so over time the electorates in each country will diverge if there are different rates of population growth.
Th Lib dems are left wing they support nationalization the railways, removal of tuition fees, joining the euro.
They have a few right wingers who want to steal the party from the left. The same as you get in the labour party.
But their voters are left wing.
In 2005 the lib dems were something like 80 % in favour of Blair over Howard. I cannot find the survey that showed this.
But they are massive left infact they were more left wing than labour at last election. People are not stupid they knew the lib dems were left wing.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1149
I was wondering what the affect on the electoral tilt would be if – as has been suggested – the number of MPs were drastically reduced.
The most recent boundary changes have been tinkering – 651 in 1992, 659 in 1997 & 2001, 646 in 2005 & 650 in 2010. These seem to have had little impact on the pro-Labour tilt of the system. But what would reducing the number of MPs to 600 or less do?
@Anthony Wells
I wasn’t aware that the there were more than the minimum of no. seats, but the average Welsh or Scottish constituency still has significantly fewer people than the UK average: Wales has 6.2% of MPs (40) but 4.9% (3/61) of the population, Scotland has 9.1% of MPs (59) but 8.3% (5.16/61) of the UK population.
No doubt there are reasons why the Boundary Commissions have allocated more seats than population would suggest, but I was trying to illustrate that they are subject to rules that cause imbalances in the sizes of constituencies and Wales would still have more than 4.9% of MPs, even if Wales only had the minimum of 35.
@ Dirty Euro
‘Th Lib dems are left wing they support nationalization the railways, removal of tuition fees, joining the euro.’
They support temporary nationalisation of public services until the economic crisis is over, they do duspport the removal of tuition fews and only afew of them want to switch to the Euro. As a Lib Dem supporter i do think we should work more with the EU but i do not support converting to the EU, i find it odd quoteing Mrs Thatcher but here i go:
‘The pound sterling has served the country and indeed the world well’ (or somthing to that accord).
The Lib Dems have as a party appeared more often than not to be on the left wing of British politics or posing as such but at a constituency level it is another matter. Their problem is that whilst the activists certainly are that way inclined -their supporters in the majority of the ex-Tory seats which they hold are decidedly not. They cannot break free of this impasse.
Thus for my money they are not a true left wing party and you cannot simply lump their votes together with those of Labour and pontificate that lo and behold there is a left wing majority in the UK which can rule forever. I would love nothing better than to see the Lib Dems and Labour form one centre left party-one target is easier to hit than two- but I see no liklehood of that happening in the near future.
Mind you I never thought Tiger Woods would miss the cut in the Open….
The Independent is saying there is a ComRes poll due out tonight.
Comedy Res Due tonight anything can happen
Prediction:
Con 1
Lab 90
Lib 9
@DirtyEuro
You and a few others posting seem to think Politics should be defined by Left and Right wing .The population are not like that they don’t think in terms of Lenin or Marx or Adam Smith .Left and Right are rather arcane concepts now.
To me you have two largely conservative parties (Labour and Conservative plus UKIP and BNP) who fundamentally want to keep things as they are/go back King Canute style to what we once seemed to be) and swap power occassionallly and two largely progressive parties Liberal Democrats and Greens.
There are some progressives in both Labour and Conservative parties too but there a a minority.
The politics of left and right is an early 20th Century concept that is finally dying (at last) hence the decline in Labour and Conservative combined vote share at each successive GE.
I don’t know how anyone in their right mind could describe Brown’s Labour party as “conservative” – they are nothing of the sort.
Jack
“I’ll vote for LD as it is the best chance to stop Con/Lab in my area. ”
Maybe that explains the fall in LD support in Scotland. The face competition from the SNP as best buy for the negative voter. That can be very regional or local.
It’s not about what the LD’s have done or not done, it’s just that in some places there is a better product available.
The SNP in this SLD constituency claim that they couldn’t find anybody who voted FOR the LD and very many who voted against Con, Lab, Con+LAB or SNP.
Is that a prescription for a safe LD seat? Are the negative voters the majority?
“When will [the Scots] ever get over the fact that Maggie is no longer PM?
When she’s dead and the BBC no longer put out anniversary programming.
“Salmond’s SNP administration in Holyrood would have collapsed long ago without tacit, and at times overt, support from Goldie.”
AG has worked out how to operate in this environment. There is no sign that any in the Scottish Labour party have, or that the UK party would allow the flexibility that would be necessary. Labour have too many other problems to participate and perhaps lack the will to do so.
Perhaps after losing the next UK and SP elections they will begin to act as a responsible minor party should. That would be better for everyone, including the SNP government.