YouGov shows Labour support rising in Scotland
The Telegraph has a new Scottish poll from YouGov. Looking at topline voting intentions first, Westminster support (with changes from way back in August) stand at CON 18%(-2), LAB 39%(+9), LDEM 12%(-6), SNP 24%(-2). As with the recent TNS-BMRB poll, it shows a real strengthening of Labour’s Westminster support in Scotland.
Comparing this to the last General election, Labour’s vote is unchanged, the Conservatives up just 2 points. The SNP are up by 6, the Lib Dems down by a crushing 11. On a uniform swing at a general election, that would result in the SNP gaining Ochil & South Perthshire from Labour, and Labour gaining Dunbartonshire East and Inverness,etc from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives wouldn’t gain anything.
Holyrood voting intentions CON 15%, LAB 33%, LDEM 14%, SNP 32%. The Telegraph doesn’t make clear if this is constituency or regional voting intention, but the changes from the 2007 election quoted in the article imply it was constituency voting intention, in which case it would represent a small swing back to Labour since YouGov’s last Holyrood polling in October when the SNP led Labour 34% to 31%.
Voting intention in a referendum on Scottish Independence stands at YES 29%(+1), NO 57%(nc), practically unchanged from the last time YouGov asked in October. The Telgraph compare the figures to an earlier poll back in October 2008 when the figures were Yes 31%, No 53%… but even then, their claim that “Support for Scottish independence has plummeted” is stretching things a bit!
UPDATE: The tables are now on YouGov’s website here. The regional figures for Holyrood stand at CON 14%, LAB 30%, LDEM 14%, SNP 29%, GRN 6%. The fieldwork dates are the 18th to the 20th November, so only a week or so after Glasgow North East.
Do you know when the fieldwork took place?
I’d love to see the tables for this, especially about Holyrood.
ALW – Previous thread 10.30 pm. You say you are very sceptical about AR, referring to your doubts about the first two AR polls. In fact, the first poll was 16 October, when both Ipsos and ICM also gave a lead of 17%. The second poll was 5 November, when YouGov and ComRes also gave a lead of 14%. Suggest scepticism is not justified, unless the next two or threepolls give leads much lower than the AR 17%.
Duncan & James – Fraid not, but you’ll know once the tables appear on the YouGov’s website.
Collin – it it’s a reply to the previous thread, why not put it on the previous thread?
Thats why I keep the Recent Comments thing on the sidebar, so conversations in threads can continue when it’s no longer at the top of the page.
This poll is very welcome and the most important thing that can be said is thank you to the Telegraph and YouGov.
A poll that suggests the level of Labour support is exactly the same as at the last election hardly justifies it being hailed as a Lasarus like recovery. Rather it supports my view that there will be very few changes in seats in Scotland.
Labour is in too many constituencies either in a poor third or fourth place with no support other than from hard core party loyalists, or the incumbent with a huge majority.
In either case it will make little difference to the outcome if a high proportion of their past supporters voted for other large parties and even less if they choose not to vote or vote for Socialists or perhaps Greens.
There are interesting things in some constituencies but the stability of the Labour and Conservative vote is not.
For example, the SNP may take Argyll from third place, but even if they took half the previous labour vote it would make no difference. What matters is whether the incumbent LibDem loses enough votes and how these are split between Conservative and SNP.
Another example of interest is whether local issues will TRUMP other considerations in Aberdeen.
I have suggested before that to predict the balance of seats between Labour and Conservative, this should be done excluding Scotland and a Labour advantage of 33 should be assumed.
That estimate may be excessive, but it will be a lot nearer than any prediction that ignores the effect of FPTP in Scotland.
Conservatives and SNP are sure of one gain each, but the Conservatives have three more where they have a chance on a good night. Gaining all three would be a huge success. There would need to be a genuine enthusiasm for Conservative policies to produce that, and even DC acknowledges that that isn’t there overall, and it certainly isn’t in near Con-free Scotland.
Neither will the SNP make AS’s 20 seats. Half of that would be more likely. That doesn’t mean they won’t get the largest number, even half of the total vote, but it won’t do them much good other than put them in a favourable position for next time.
They have one certain gain, but are mostly in third place. There will be gains from third place, but only those who know the constituency well will be able to pick them out. Argyll may be one. Or not.
The pattern in Scotland is very different. It’s as if it were a different country. Some think it should be.
There is change. The SNP are gaining at the expense of other parties except the Conservatives who are flatlining but FPTP and the regionality of all the parties other than the Greens and including the Socialists means that there will be hardly any changes in seats in Scotland.
Those who are making calculations of the Lab/Con balance need to take account of that.
A stronger than expected boost to Labour following Glasgow NE. But with the GE coming up it is to be expected that Labour’s vote will start to close ranks.
This is fecking disastrous for the Lib Dems. After the drubbing they took in Glasgow NE, it was expected that their share would be hit, but 11 points?!
I think this is a consequence of an all-English leadership nationally. I’m not saying it is a conspiracy, but when Charlie Kennedy or Ming Campbell was in charge there was naturally a greater identification with the Lib Dems in Scotland.
Tavish Scott is nice-but-dull and sleepwalking to a wipeout.
Nick Clegg seems Cameron-lite and is concentrating too hard on Tory gains in England (how much has he bothered to campaign in Scotland, does anyone know?)
There is an interesting dilemma now for the SNP. Salmond has been talking up a hung parliament in the (correct) belief that the SNP can use their balance of power to extract concessions. As Wee Eck himself put it, “parliament would be hung by a Scottish rope.”
However, the greater the likelihood of a hung parliament, the greater the likelihood of the Conservatives forming the next Government becomes. That, in turn, draws Labour’s vote together and might encourage SNP voters to back Labour in order to forestall another ‘foreign’ Tory government.
Any comments from our Scottish contributors?
Any comments from our Scottish contributors?
Not yet, well not fro me.
This is awful for Liberal Democrats. An english leader can’t help; neither can the absence of a “not in my name campaign”.
Are there are any Scotland-specific problems facing LibDems or are they simply being squeezed?
I wonder what the impact on the Lib Dems will be of Clegg’s continued shift towards supporting the Tories in a hung Parliament
What is the Lib Dems’ distinctive brand in Scotland? Tories are the staunch unionists, SNP are the nationalists and Labour are to Scotland what the Tories are to England.
Well, that is just it , Richard.
For about the last decade and a half, the Scottish Lib Dems pulled off the neat trick of being a reservoir for protest votes against Labour, whilst also being credible enough to serve two terms as coalition partners with Labour.
It is a simple squeeze now.
The LD disaster in Glasgow NE was followed up last week by another result below 3% – this time in a council election in Falkirk where Cons rose above 10% and Lab fell below 30% with SNP runaway winners.
When looking at an 11% slide since 2005 one needs to bear in mind that this represensts about half of their 2005 vote. It is not inconceivable that LDs could lose half their Scottish seats – and certainly won’t be making many gains.
What really matters though is those seats where LDs were third with 15-25% of the vote last time. These are teh areas where we may see some big swings with former LD voters switching to other parties to vote tactically to either shore up or defeat the incumbent.
I disagree with John Dick about the likely number of seats changing hands, and personally think that Lab will fall below 50% of Scottish seats for the first time since the 1950s. That would put them at no more than 20-25 seats ahead of Cons.
The LibDems brand image is NotLab-NotCon-&-NotSNP In much of Scotland it’s a winner. Once they are the incumbent they hang on. If they are the challenger the incumbent better not support an unpopular government or be less than a workaholic on constituency issues, or he/she’ll be out.
If you don’t want independence, and many SNP voters don’t, you don’t need to vote for it. If the SNP seems the best buy for the voter who doesn’t want to vote for the two parties of government then he will desert the LibDems especially where the are a “wasted vote” and the SNP aren’t. In the highland seats they already hold, this won’t happen except the most urban of them Argyll where the incumbent is failing to impress with his energy and effectiveness and where the SNP have recently taken the SP seat.
Where the LibDems are third or fourth, they won’t be squeezed so much as sqashed flat as in Glasgow North.
Glasgow North has been Labour for 74 years. At the election before that, the voting age was 21.
In that constituency, only centenarians have voted in an election which returned a candidate other than Labour, and at election before that one women under 30 didn’t vote. There aren’t many centenarians in a constituency with one of the wordt health records.
Does that put the Labour “win” in perspective.
Nothing should be read into the LibDem result. The They, the Conservatives, Greens Ukip BNP and the various Socialists were aiming to save their deposits and most of them didn’t.
Having said that, the LibDem vote is so regional that a Scotland wide poll can’t be relied on to indicate how well they will do in an election in terms of seats or even votes and to an extent that is true of the Conservatives in a differnt sense for they are thinly spread and concentrated around Edinburgh.
I posted recently a comment about this. Have a look at what FPTP did to the Conservatives last time.
Unfortunately the LibDems won’t lose that many seats as about a third of their national vote in 59 seats last time came from the 12 they won.
This time i’d say they will probably hold something like 10 but that will make up 50% of their vote.
If that happens elsewhere they could be heading back to where they were in the pre SDP days of being a small almost regional party who will struggle as their high profile MP’s retire.
Unfortunately for me the Highlands of Scotland might well be one of the last bastions. They have always done well here by putting balm on the chips on peoples shoulders and stoking a sense of grievance that its “All their fault”
A particularly effective strategy has been ” Vote for Us and we’ll Fight to get you it it”…. not “We’ll deliver or provide it”, but “we’ll demand that they deliver or provide it”.
The key is that by championing a popular cause while never being in a position to deliver it you can keep getting elected.
I’ll comment more on the poll when the tables are up.
Peter.
At first glance this looks bad for the Liberals, but while they certainly wont be making any gains, I doubt they will lose more then a handful of their scottish seats.
The Highlands are the closest thing the Liberals have to a heartland, and only Argyll has an even remote chance of falling. While most other seats have fairly strong majorities, I would say the most likely loss is Dunfuirmaline if Labour continue to revive, or even remain steady.
The greatest loses will be in non Lib-Dem constituencies where they are unlikely to come above 4th in many, but i wouldn’t predict more then 2 seats being lost.
Labours tactics in Scotland have been to blame any cuts on the SNP- almost laughable considering the shambles caused by the UK government
All councils and the Scottish Government are facing major funding issues in the next few years
The SNP have got to come out fighting and dispel the lies from Labour
Either way after the GE in the summer Labour face either havinf to cut budgets further or are in opposition
2011 I think will see the return of an SNP government
Paul H-J
“I disagree with John Dick about the likely number of seats changing hands”
Good!
Lets look at where the are coming from. I guess that you are looking at polling data. I am looking at insividual seats and asking “Is a change likely here?” There are three possibe answers: Yes, No, and maybe.
Peter has already offered the suggestion that the LibDems will lose two. Would you say that the SNP and Conservatives will not lose that which we have?
Is that likely? If so two target Con gains need to be classed as SNP holds.
I think there are single near-certain Con and SNP gains, and a range of Con possibles beyond that. I’m assuming that not all the possibles will change.
I’d concede that beyond that there might be two or three SNP gains from third place (as they nearly always are). I think my own constituency might be one of them. Two or three maybe four. Five? hardly. Alex Salmond’s 12? Not as things stand. (I’d throw in another two for the “Events dear boy,” of a state funeral if there is one.
If I don’t go now I’ll miss the last diverted ferry home.
Can we work together to pick the changes?
If Labour is polling at the same percentage in Scotland than they must be even more lower percentage wise than last election in England and Wales.
So when Labour gets 29 and 31 in two recent polls their vote concentration in Scotland has to be taken out.
Does anyone know the math that if you take out their scotish vote how much that lowers their percentage in their overall polling positions we have been seeing. I am basing this on of course that Labour gets the same percentage in Scotland as last election.
This confirms what I said about a post Glasgow by-election boost for Labour. I wonder how many days it will last?
John,
Will have to get back to you tomorrow on possible changes in Scotland – I too must dash
Paul
Once again the important point is that if Labour are doing about the same in Scotland as last time but in the UK as a whole are down by about 10% they must be doing pretty awfully in both England and Wales.
Can someone on this website tell me why the Conservatives are not out campaigning in Scotland ?
To my knowledge David Cameron has never been North of the Border nor has any memeber of the Shadow Cabinet.
Can anyone explain why Labour is so much more popular in the Westminster Poll the in the Holyrood poll.
This puts an interesting perspective on the UK wide recent polls. Labour is clearly up in Scotland if this poll is accurate, but with it conforming other polls in Scotland it seems safe to assume labour has staged a reasonable recovery north of the border. This may be significant in two ways. Firstly in seats. if the election is going to be tighter than seemed possible a few weeks ago, a strong Labour performance in Scotland is important for them. Secondly, does it mean there is a general recovery in Labour heartlands elsewhere? I cautioned against people assuming 2010 was going to be the final end for Labour, and if they are making some headway in their heartlands then the total meltdown doesn’t seem to be on the cards.
It all adds to the sense that Labour are improving, but we still have contradictory UK polls and we need more of them before we can really be sure what’s happening out there.
Party, Westminster, change cf 2005, SP Const, change cf 2007, SP List, change cf 2007
Lab, 39%, (0), 33%, (1), 30%, (1)
SNP, 24%, (6), 32%, (-1), 29%, (-2)
Con, 18%, (2), 15%, (-2), 14%, (0)
LD, 12%, (-11), 14%, (-2), 14%, (3)
Green, -%, (-), -%, (-), 6%, (2)
SSP/Sol, -%, (-), -%, (-), 4%, (3)
What is remarkable is how little change there has been since the last relevant election – apart from the collapse of the LD vote for Westminster, and its capture by the SNP and “others”.
On these results, the SNP would lose its largest party status at Holyrood, but largely to the Greens and SSP.
The majority against independence has been highlighted, but what hasn’t been noted is the satisfaction with the SNP Government
Approve 41% : Disapprove 36%.
Mori and now You Gov in Scotland is saying that Labour’s heartland vote is recovering.
Those who stayed away in 2005 [ remember turnout was 59% ] were mostly Labour voters. They will be back !
Imtiaz Kabir
The Scottish YouGov poll says nothing of the kind. Labour’s share of the vote is exactly where it was in 2005. With the collapse of the LD vote, they gained exactly nothing. SNP gained 6%, Con 2%, others (probably Green) gained 3%.
Hardly a Labour resurgence!
BS
A quarter of those voting SNP in Scottish elections think that it matters whether the UK has a Tory or Labour Government and vote accordingly. Hence the difference.
Given that many Scotts seem unwilling to support the Conservatives, I wonder why the Conservative party doesn’t adjust their election policy accordingly. i.e. give up on Scotland as a waste of effort and court more votes in England by promising to abolish the ‘unfair’ Barnett Formula.
..and while they are at it, resolve the West Lothian question.
How do the sages on here believe that such a policy would affect the Conservative’s poll standings?
Paul & John:
As I see it, the following seats are likely to change hands at the GE:
Dumfries & Galloway (L – C)
B’shire, R’burgh & Selkirk (LD – C)
Edinburgh South (L – C)
Stirling (L – C) [possibly]
Ochil & S Perthshire (L – SNP)
Dundee West (L – SNP)
Aberdeen North (L – SNP) [possibly]
Argyle & Bute (LD – SNP or C) [possibly]
[[Dunf'line & W Fife (LD - L or SNP)]] [possibly]
[[Glasgow East]] (SNP – L)
I would be wary of these Scottish opinion polls, especially with respect the supposed collapse of the Lib Dem vote.
In the three Herald / System Three opinion polls published just before the last General Election, the Lib Dems scored 16%, 13% and 14% respectively. They ended up getting 23% of the vote in the election itself in Scotland.
I quick trall through Scottish by-election history will also show the Liberal Democrats have a fine tradition of getting thrashed in Scottish parliamentary by-elections (see Monklands East, Hamilton South, Ayr, Falkirk West etc). These gave no indication as to the Lib Dem performance in the following General Election in Scotland.
Hard to say. Feeding the poor few Scottish Tories to the sharks might be frowned upon–or cheered. As an American I have been strongly struck by an — trying to find a term that won’t upset Anthony. Let’s say a general attitude from total disinterest to outright dislike among the English. So it would go over well with some and probably not anger many in England. So I suppose such a thing might be a general positive.
It would cost them in Holyrood, but would they care?
But if they ditch Barnett they have to actually come up with a funding scheme which I suspect is something the Tories have no stomach for. Putting off giving Holyrood desperately needed borrowing powers (required for any functioning government) and keep hoping the entire devolution thing eventually fails seems to be their only real Scottish policy.
Possibly too political for Anthony, but that’s how I see it from the other side of the pond.
Pedant alert: it’s Argyll not Argyle.
Not surprising to see the Conservatives making little progress in Scotland. The last Conservative administration made few friends there over an 18 year period – and the Scots may well have long memories.
Be interesting to see if some urban parts of the North (of England) have a similar recall…
I speak as someone with little knowledge of Scotland’s politics, but I think the collapse of Tory support in Scotland is being overcooked slightly at least in psephological terms. A party that polls 15-20% of the popular vote is definitely not a major player, that’s for certain. And compared to the support enjoyed by the Tories in England, and even in Wales, the Scottish Conservatives are the poor relation.
But….
For decades the Tories have done worse in Scotland than in England. That’s nothing new. And 18% in Scotland for the Tories is around the same score that the LDs quite often get for the whole UK. And the recent poll putting Labour on 22% in the UK (and therefore presumably somewhere below 20% in England) isn’t a massive distance from that. Alright that was a quite unbelievable poll but still.
My point being that it is fashionable to write off the Scottish parties as if they were finished. An irrelevance. I think that’s wish-fulfillment to some extent. It is only FPTP that makes Scotland’s Tories seem non-existant because of the wipeout of Westminster MPs (I am not making an argument for reform – I support FPTP).
The way Nats and Scottish socialists portray the situation, you would think that the Scottish people utterly shun Conservatism. The polls seem to suggest that there is a small but significant school of Conservative opinion in Scotland that is being wished away somewhat.
To Andrew, I believe Cameron went up to Glasgow for the recent by election and he was interviewed by the local papers up there and gave his we will respect remark.
The recent Angus poll showed that a third of Labour’s support is in Scotland. So while Labour may hold on to most of their seats in Scotland, in the rest of the country its looking to be a very different story.
Philip JW
“The recent Angus poll showed that a third of Labour’s support is in Scotland.”
Hardly! The small Scots sample showed Labour with 33% of those polled – a very different thing.
Party, GB, E&W
Lab, 22%, 21%
Con, 39%, 42%
LD, 21%, 22%
Labour in 3rd place in England 0n the basis of Angus Reid.
I find it hard to believe that the Tories are not campaigning hard in Scotland.
The issue is will the election of the tories be good or bad for scotland in the eyes of the electorate? At the moment the tories do not seem to have a message which will make a significant majority vote for them. Maybe it needs some radical re-thinking.
I would be very surprised if the Lib dems lost at most more than 2 seats in scotland.
Coming from outside Scotland, SNP seemed to be doing a reasonable job, but if so why is labour resurgent?
This isn’t bad for the Tories because they need to get 100 seats from Labour and they weren’t really competing against them in Scotland. So if Labour’s vote is holding up in Scotland that means the tories have a better chance of getting those 100 seats in England and Wales. Labour will still be pleased because now SNP won’t be able to pick up a dozen seats from them.
In the last poll of Scotland Labour was at 39percent in Scotland and 23 in England.
Tories might not need a 10 percent win for a majority if the Labour vote is so concentrated in Scotland where the Tories weren’t really going to get many seats anyway. They were hoping for four at best.
The swingometer doesn’t take into account Labour holding up in Scotland and collapsing elsewhere. So maybe the Tories will only need an 8 percent gap over Labour to get a majority.
I keep thinking back to Norwich North and although that seat was unique with a popular MP quitting it was still a terrible result for Labour. So these polls that show Labour gaining don’t mean much to the tories if they are only gaining in Scotland. If they start gaining in England and Wales then the tories need to worry.
Labour is able to run as outsiders in Scotland against the SNP and the SNP needs to do a better job of fighting back against Labour.
Also Brown and Darling being from there is a big help to them. Brown in many ways fits the electorate better in Scotland than Blair ever did. So I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they did as well in Scotland as the last election maybe with just a slight dip and a slight gain from SNP with Lib dem voters voting strategically for them to defeat labour.
James/Andy Stidwell
That’s it. I think we can calculate Scottish marginals and see what the Lab seats majority over Con might be. For now if we assume a number not very different from what we currently have, we are looking at wheelchair and stretcher divisions again.
There are also consequences arising from an even more Conservative England and a very Lab/SNP Scotland.
Alec
Whether Labour are up or down doesn’t much matter FPTP and regionalisation are what makes for safe seats in Glasgow and risible fourths in the highlands.
Andrew
The map they have is not very up to date. It says “Here be Dragons”
I can’t say that it would be a good idea. They might as easily lose votes as gain them.
BS/Imtiaz Kabir
OldNat is right as usual
OldNat
I would add that the second biggest change on your figures is the change in SNP at Westminster which is over a longer timescale during which the SNP government has made its mark to the electorate’s “satisfaction” as your figures show.
As I have said, the SNP are often seen as the ” best buy” for those who are scunnered with the big two. No doubt this is a consequence of “satisfaction”.
Voting churn is about competence and integrity. Independence is for the referendum and quite separate and unconnected.
It is also, a much longer term decision.
I see nothing inconsistent or unexplained in these figures. There was no apparent reason for the Green debacle in 2007 other than “AS for FM.” So it isn’t surprising that they are making a recovery. So too may the Socialists when their legal problems are resolved.
Tony M
Why don’t they do it? Not bcause they would lose many votes and they would only lose one seat in Scotland.
The Scottish Party would feel abused and morale and probably membership and party organisation would collapse.
The SNP would gain at the expense of Labour and LibDems and independance wouldn’t be far away.
What they should do is the Bavarian solution and rebranding. Then almost at a stroke they could be in government in Scotland. As potential coalition partners to either the SNP or Labour they are toxic as things stand.
@Tony M – a couple of points re the Tories giving up in Scotland. Number one is seats – while they may or may not be heading for a comfortable majority/landslide in 2010, the last time they governed I think I’m right in saying they won a majority of 21 with 11 scottish seats. Remove Scotland then, and no Tory majority. No one knows when the Tories might really need 5 or 6 seats north of the border – maybe even in 2010? Number two is political – abandoning Scotland undercuts entirely Camerons inclusive, unionist UK wide message. He may not go down so well in Scotland, but he must campaign there, because if he doesn’t, people in Wales, the south west, the north, inner London etc will all be reminded by their opponents that at heart, those Tories are just in it for rich southerners. It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t true.
John B Dick
Thanks for the compliment!
“What they should do is the Bavarian solution and rebranding.”
The Tories floated this internally in 2007 – making the Scottish Party independent. It never became a formal proposal. Any Tories here know why?
I hope Anthony won’t mind be asking for help here. I am testing some prediction software that I hope to have running live on election night.
You get to play Returning Officer for a constituency! Just enter what you think the votes will be on the night and the program does the rest. I have thirty results in form the denizens of politicalbetting.com already, and it will be interesting to throw ukpollingreport into the mix.
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/
Where to start,
The Tory rise?
The tories got 16% in Scotland in 2005 so 18% means they have increased there vote by 2% or indeed18% is 13% higher than 16%. They have recently peaked near 21% or respectively 5% or 30% higher.
Given that Scotland is a four party system I suspect if the tories did come out with there vote in 2010 close to 25% higher than 2005 then it would be roughly in line with their UK rise.
in short the Tories have recovered since 2005 and over all in votes if not seats they are the third party in Scotland overtaking the Libdems who have dropped from second to fourth.
Tory Campaigning in Scotland
The Tories do regularly campaign in Scotland including members of the shadow cabinet It doesn’t get mentioned much in the UK press but they are regular visitors, if not always well received ones.
A third of Labours vote?
If Labour are on about 25% in the mainland UK vote and a third of that comes from Scotland with only 10% of the UK mainland population then Labour should be on about 80% in Scottish polls…. I don’t think so (thank goodness).
WS Scotland Votes.
Put these into scotland votes and the Holyrood result would be;
Lab 48 (+2), SNP 42 (-5), LibDem 18 (+2), Con 17 (-), SSP 1 (+1), Grn 2 (0), Ind 1 (0)
That makes another Lib/Lab pact possible as they have 66 seats out of 129 between them.
Although i suspect as they will almost certainly be facing a tory Government in Westminster and out of pride ( if the SNP can do it) a minority Government. equally if the SNP were to bring it down with Tory support then Labour could use it to its advantage.
Alex Salmond isn’t Gerald Ford.
For those of you who can remember that far back the comment made ( I think by Nixon) about Vice President Ford is that he couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
The problem with the priority question is it assumes that Governments can or should do only one thing at a time or that we should focus our efforts the highest immediate concern.
Not only do i think the SNP government is capable of pursuing a lot of things at once any good government should not only be capable of it, its actually essential that they do.
If unemployment is the top priority should the UK government;
Stop reforming the NHS, Keep people in jobs that don’t need to be done, Cut funding for the army in Afghanistan to put it into job creation, Stop all government R&D, Cancel all long term planning on renewing the grid or replacing current power stations, Cancel all non-economic legislation, Abolish the minimum wage,
You can go on and on about things that may be a lower priority than another but still need to be done or can be done at the same time.
Right now the national conversation is an on going project but it isn’t getting anything like the focus or resourcing that fighting the recession is. Over two years its less than £12m from a government that has spent close to £80bn.
Just today it was announced that having set a government efficiency target of £550m in 2008/9 the actual bankable saving reached in Scotland and reinvested was £800m. In one year 60 times the spend on the national conversation in year on year savings.
The only people saying that the focus on Independence is currently the SNPs top priority above the opponents of the SNP and Independence.
It is something we are actively promoting as its a manifesto commitment that we think we can progress at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately Local income tax is something that has had to be delayed as unlike £12m over two years would have needed a transfer of £500m in Council tax benefit every year.
people might not agreed but for people that believe Independence will be of huge benefit to Scotland delivering it for under £20m or so over a parliament when the Labour government secretly lent £62bn over a weekend is a bargain.
Peter.
The Angus Reid poll data for Scotland for Westminster are;
Lab 33%, Tory 18%, LibDem 16%, SNP 25% Others 8%.
It is only a sub sample of 137 but compared to this YouGov poll;
Lab 39%, Tory 18%, LibDem 12%, SNP 24%, Others 7%.
The main difference is the higher Labour vote and the diference between the LibDems, but as noted elsewhere AR do have a high LibDem figure in UK terms.
Regardless it does seem to suggest a solid Labour recovery.
Neil
We have a large degree of agreement.
Of your four C gains, only the first is a confident prediction, though I agree these are the possibles. Because I think that three or even two would need local factors and luck, I wouldn’t count all these chickens but maybe out of the two middle ones either one could change and I don’t think we need to choose between them for this exercise.
I say that because as even DC has recognised that Labour are losing rather than Conservatives winning, and this applies with extra force in Scotland. I’m also assuming a no Con loss, but the MP is not highly regarded by his party leadership and if there are local issues against him there could even be a surprise Lab gain from Con. Not counting all these chickens covers us for that too.
Of your SNP gains, Leaving Argyll aside for the moment, I agree that we can count the first two.
The third is, as you say possible, but there there may be other eggs than these that hatch too. I would be unsurprised if there were SNP gains from third position for local reasons that we cannot predict if we do not have direct knowlege of the constituency. These would be rural and under the radar of the media.
Richard Lochhead is the SNP’s secret weapon. Townies have no idea what he is doing, but it’s a lot.
If not Aberdeen North, then somewhere else will make up for it and maybe even at most one more.
Argyll and Bute, where I vote is as you say a three way marginal and formerly four way. For there to be an SNP win, the LibDem needs to lose 9% of his support last time (not 9% of the poll). That’s possible.
No more than a tenth of that can go to the Conservatives or the Conservatives win. Labour are nowhere, squeezed already and hardly worth squeezing more, but any Labour losses would surely go to SNP rather than the Conservatives.
It is the least rural, least highland LibDem incumbency so possibly has the least LibDem inertia.
The Conservative vote fell the last time and they have a new, less well known candidate. There can be few who would have voted LibDem to keep the SNP out where Con were the challenger and most who were prepared to vote Conservative will have done so last time since the SNP are further behind.
The SNP won the Holyrood seat. Some see LibDem and SNP votes as floatable. I think this is the “best buy” negative voters. They don’t vote Conservative.
My guess is that if there is a change, the SNP rather than the Conservatives will win.
Dunfermline and West Fife (if a SNP win) I’ve allowed for if not specifically counted. Glasgow East might very well not revert. There were local issues here, and the attention the constituency received might seem a reason for sticking with the SNP for now.
Overall we are very much in agreement other than that I am discounting the full number of possible Con gains possibles and allowing for one or two extra rogue SNP gains.
I don’t think your Lab/Con majority of seats is so very different from mine (33). Thomas Hall and Peter Cairns seem to be with us in respect of the LibDems if Peter counts reversions the way I think he does.
Peter
Individual small Scottish samples are pretty meaningless, but in aggregate across a range of pollsters in agreement they can suggest a trend.
In this case, it seems pretty clear that Labour have now recovered to their 2005 level.
However, it also seems totally clear now that UNS across GB is a meaningless concept. Indeed the collapse of LD in Scotland probably isn’t reflected in a Scottish UNS either.
I certainly wouldn’t want to put money on which party is going to win in 4 way splits such as Argyll & Bute!
OldNat
Not recently (maybe even in 2007) I wrote to my two Con MSP’s asking why they didn’t do Bavarianisation and rebranding and I got a common answer from a staff member.
The answer was that they are a Unionist party. I understood that the Unionist bit referred primarily to Ireland and it’s a bit out of date now.
They also said that they wern’t preparing for independence because they were against it. The only sound reasons for not preparing either that you are sure it won’t happen, or could instantly respond without having done your thinking and contingency planning first.
We don’t run wars like that by any chance, do we?
After the election would be the right time to revisit these options I think. Then the change would be bedded in by the next Scottish Parliament elections when they could make a bid to either Labour or SNP or maybe BOTH as coalition partners.
Scotland is fortunate that there are two large and two middle sized parties, but the options for co-operation are restricted by the Westminster connection.
Now that NewLabour and Conservatives are so close, Tweedledum and Tweedledee have to make the most of their differences and half the House of Commons would be in therapy if they had to relate to a Lab/Con coalition in Scotland.
MP’s seem to have a lot of problems they don’t need to have and I think that mostly the dysfunctional constitution is at fault, but maybe MP’s are just not quite as bright as they would like us to think they are and they can’t see why it needs fixed.
As I’ve often said in these threads: the model is there to be followed. The better governance of Scotland, is not the primary purpose of Donald Dewar’s Home Rule parliament.
OLDNAT
“I certainly wouldn’t want to put money on which party is going to win in 4 way splits such as Argyll & Bute!”
I couldn’t agree more, but I’d put money on the Conservative coming second and Labour coming fourth.
Andrew,
“Can someone on this website tell me why the Conservatives are not out campaigning in Scotland ?
To my knowledge David Cameron has never been North of the Border nor has any memeber of the Shadow Cabinet.”
That’s a nonsense – DC was in Glasgow NE, as were several members of the Shadow Cabinet. We are out campaigning regularly all over Scotland (Glasgow is a particular hotspot
)
John,
I agree that 5 seats is the top end for the Conservatives (I know some party activists who insist we will only have 2 – DCT and BRS), but I think you are a little over optimistic with the SNP’s prospects – particularly your forlorn hope of retaining Glasgow East.
I think the state of the parties after the next GE will be:
Labour – 35
SNP – 10
Libdem – 10
Conservative – 4
Peter
I don’t care what independence costs.
I don’t think it is either necessary or the best option.
I want the comfort of knowing that when I am no longer here that my grandchildren will live in a country which respects the values on the mace and is governed on the Founding Principles of the Scottish Parliament.
If independence now will deliver that in my lifetime I want it for me as much as I want what I want for them.
The SNP is missing out on the best case for independence.
‘JAMES
Labour is able to run as outsiders in Scotland against the SNP and the SNP needs to do a better job of fighting back against Labour.’
Labour is not an outsider in Scotland; people can see and understand Westminster and also Labour ran Scotland (badly) for many years and also is still in many townhalls. Labour is only an ‘outsider’ as it currently is not in power at Holyrood, not really a useful usage of the term ‘outsider’ as its not a definition most people use.
So, it’s still Labour versus SNP I agree; and the most common form of Labour is the dying Westminster govt. which does not allow Holyrood all the powers it needs. Easy argument for the SNP- we’d do it but Westminster isn’t doing / providing on all the bad news–and on the good news it’s all due to quality of SNP in Holyrood.
One thought. If the Liberal Democrats really were on 12% in Scotland, shouldn’t they be on something like 15%-17% nationally instead of 19%.
Similarly, if Labour really is on 39% in Scotland shouldn’t they be on something like 29%-31% nationally instead of 26%.
I only say this because of the way the votes and seats are distributed for Labour and Liberal Democrats across the UK.
It would seem to me that if this Scottish Poll is correct then the MORI Poll published at the weekend must also be correct because Labour in particular would be holding onto seats they are meant to lose, even gaining a few from both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, thus restricting Tory gains.
I would love to know what people think.
I hope the left encourage more scottish tories to read this blog to see the views of some of the English tories here, they can see that English tories are so vindictive and care so little about them that they want to be chucked away.
It is good propaganda for the fact that tories are n anti scottish Little Englander party in the extreme.
Richard,
I don’t think so. It entirely depends on their popularity in England and Wales. I believe that the Libdems are considerably more popular in England, while Labour are far less popular in both England and Wales.
Dirty Euro,
Can you think of any examples?
Sorry Anthony but your not accurate when you say that on those figures the Scottish tories wouldnt make any gains, I ran the numbers through Electoral Calc and it came out:
Lab: 42 [+1]
Con: 3 [+2]
SNP: 7 [nc]
Lib: 7 [-4]
That seems like substantial progress for the tories, a collapse of the libs and a decent night for labour.
And your inaccurate again on the Holyrood numbers, the article makes clear in the Telegraph that those were Holyrood CONSTITUENCY NUMBERS.
Honestly, at least try and pay more respect to the seperate Scottish political cycle!
@DIRTY EURO
As a vindictive little englander I could not care less who the left encourage to read this blog. Scottish Tories all 15 of them, are not about to be burned at the stake are they? We have got our own fish to fry.
Dean,
I think Anthony said that on these figures the Conservatives would not gain any seats on UNS – which is correct I think. Electoral Calculus doesn’t use UNS – quite rightly in my opinion, as UNS doesn’t happen in real life.
‘DIRTY EURO
I hope the left encourage more scottish tories to read this blog to see the views of some of the English tories here’
Bizarre comment. How could the left do this? Why would they do this? Why would the left want to know the views of little englanders / UKIP / BNP / the empire still rules people?
King Harold
The last heretic, a Unitarian, was hanged in 1696, the last witches burned alive in 1661. Recently we’ve gone a bit soft. Just before hanging for murder was ended you were 13 times more likely to be killed if tried in England.
Tory MSP’s are a national treasure which remind us of the former one nation Conservatives motivated by a sense of duty to serve the community through the only electable alternative to the class warriors of the socialist Labour party.
Had they been freed from Westminster ties at devolution they might well now be in coalition with either Lab or SNP.
@ JOHN B DICK
Thanks John I was hopeing you would clear this up for me.
The wee man Dirty Euro had me concerned that Mel Gibson was on the war path again.
Neil, John
Ochil, Dundee and Argyll I would say are virtual shoe-ins for the SNP. Aberdeen North probable.
I would add Glasgow South as a potential SNP gain. SNP hold the Holyrood equivalent with a high profile MSP (Nicola Sturgeon) who is very popular (or certainly populist).
The Labour encumbent Tom Harris has a lower profile than the former MSP who spent most of his time running a law firm.
SNP won the popular vote in Glasgow South in the Euro elections despite the wide range of voting options available in that poll. The SNP candidate (Malcolm Fleming) is pretty strong too.
Just one to add to the mix.
Paul
Let’s focus on what I am trying to do here with Neil’s help. Your challenge to my calculations may allow me to improve them.
My contention is that calculations of parliamentary majorities based on national polls do not reflect the reality that, as a consequence of FPTP and regional differences, changes in Scottish seats will be remarkably few. If I am right, Alex Salmond’s estimate of 20 seats is wildly optimistic, and Conservative gains and Labour losses are also overstated in most estimates.
I am trying to separate Scotland from UK projections in order to estimate the Lab/Con majority for Scotland alone in the hope that it can be considered alongside estimates for the remainder of the UK. For that purpose, it doesn’t matter whether the LibDem in Argyll retains his seat or loses to the SNP, but it does if he loses to the Conservative.
I have suggested that there will be an excess of Lab over Con MP’s sent to Westminster of 33. Neil offers 31 as his “most likely” or perhaps it is his “worst for Labour”. I calculate his “conservative” (in the accounting sense) and “possible” estimate as 34 and 32.
Maybe I will be persuaded that my estimate is too high or too low, but whatever the final figure I don’t think the old swingometer and a national poll can be used at all in Scotland with 4 regional parties, an electorate now experienced in split voting in a single election many of whom (as Peter has explained) see the party which they voted for most recently and strongly approve of (see OldNat’s post) as irrelevant to the election we are now considering.
It is unlikely that Neil’s guesses or mine are exactly right and all are highly qualified anyway, but we are very close and crucially are using the same method.
The few differences between us are that I would not want to be specific about which seats the SNP and Con gain beyond the one most likely in each case, but I’m allowing that some other chickens may hatch if these don’t and there could well be one or even two further rogue SNP gains from third place on local circumstances only predictable with local knowledge. I’m counting Argyll as an SNP gain for the reasons I explained above.
I’m cautious about Con gains because as even DC acknowledges that the trend is against Labour rather that in favour of the Conservatives, and they are less likely to benefit in near Con-free, four-party Scotland.
It isn’t partisan optimism that makes me unwilling to accept that Glasgow East will revert to Labour. It’s the fact that I didn’t predict the SNP win and don’t understand it even with hindsight. There must be local factors at work and it may be that for whatever reason people in this constituency have turned against Labour permanently. Those that have done so, noting the attention they have generated may well be much more likely to vote SNP again for no better reason than that they enjoyed giving Labour a kicking last time and want to do it again.
Maybe these differences between us could be reduced. I’m open to persuasion, but they are so marginal and may be compensating that it really doesn’t matter.
Between 31 and 34 extra Scottish Labour MP’s will contribution to the difference between the parties of Westminster government and the SNP will be are “defeated” by only being able to increase their seats by two thirds of what they currently have and converting many third place positions into winnable marginals for next time.
In all of the estimates the total number of seats changing hands is far less than required for the highest number of gains predicted in these pages by optimists in either of the parties which are expected to win additional seats. Neither will the LibDems suffer the heavy losses their opponents have predicted. Whatever Labour may lose in votes isn’t going to make a big difference is seats.
Denis Donoghue
I have acknowledged such possibilities as an unspecific provision for rogue SNP gains on local circumstances, and I think that two such would be rather a lot.
There is only one Nicola Sturgeon and only one workaholic Health Secretary. No doubt she will make a positive contribution in the constituency campaign but they can’t produce a clone to stand as the MP in the same constituency.
If I were running the SNP’s party broadcasts she’d get the most exposure. It’s the way she shakes her head ans says “It’s wrong. We’re not doing it.” (Contract cleaning, PFI etc.). There is no answer to that.
James
Thanks you have given two good reasons why labour does so much better in Scotland, they are the challengers rather than government and there are several leading Scottish MPs holding key positions.
Cllr Cairns,
Thank you for your analysis of tories in Scotland. I find informative postings like this really interesting.
Dirty Euro,
How can you tell the difference between scottish and english tories? Is it their names e.g. cameron?
Denis D,
I agree with you about Ochil – certain SNP gain. Dundee West is likely, but certainly not a shoe-in. Argyll & Bute (see, I used the modern spelling this time
) is a tough one for the SNP – certainly wouldn’t put any money on it. Aberdeen North is possible – but I wouldn’t go so far as to say probable.
As to Glasgow South, the SNP have about as much chance of winning it as the Socialist Labour Party have of winning Horsham. It isn’t going to happen. (OK, perhaps slightly more chance, but not much). FYI there isn’t an equivalent seat in Holyrood – it is split up between 3 Holyrood seats, and all 3 have other areas in them too, so no conclusions can be drawn. Furthermore, as has been pointed out ad nauseum on this site, Westminster results bear no relation to Holyrood results (for a host of reasons). Also, I wouldn’t go so far as to say Tom Harris has a low public profile, even compared to the sturgeon. Harris is very well known (and liked) in Glasgow South, and outside it too. If you remember back to June he was one of James Purnell’s principal allies.
All in all, I think you are dramatically over-estimating the SNP’s prospects.
John B Dick,
Maybe I can help you to understand why the SNP won Glasgow East, and then you will see why they are unlikely to hold onto it.
They won because:
1) The SNP were at the zenith of their popularity in mid 2008
2) Labour were at the depth of their unpopularity in 2008
3) Labour took the voters for granted
4) Labour called the by-election far too quick, assuming they would win, and didn’t give themselves enough time for an effective campaign
5) Labour selected their candidate FAR too late
There may well have been other reasons, but as I see it these are the main ones, and you can see at a glance that none of them will apply in 2010.
@JOHN B DICK
Your point number 5 – late choice of candidate, do I remember that the eventual choice of candidate was 2nd or 3rd choice, to make matters worse?
@NEIL
Sorry Neil the above question to you not John.
King Harold,
I don’t remember that bit, but very possibly. Also, she was a sitting member of the Scottish Parliament, and, IIRC was in the frame to become leader of Labour in Scotland at the time (shortly after the long overdue demise of Wendy Alexander’s political career). So she clearly wasn’t committed to going as a constituency MP to Westminster – that can’t have helped.
Andrew “To my knowledge David Cameron has never been North of the Border nor has any member of the Shadow Cabinet.”.
You obviously are not well informed. Cameron as party leader has visited Scotland at least 6 times to my to my knowledge. He campaigned in the last 4 Westminister Scottish by-elections (whereas G Brown only went to 3). Many others in the shadow cabinet have campaigned in Scotland and both Cameron & Osbourne have made major speeches in Scotland this year.
King Harold
No 1 isn’t big enough, or as much in evidence elsewhere as it would need to be to account for an upset of that size.
No3 would be the credible explanation I’m looking for except that it was anything but new so I remain unconvinced. If that really is the explanation then it might well not be temporary, but again, why do we not see a shift of such proportions elsewhere?
There were many candidates rejected or who refused to stand. It depends how you are counting, but there were more than three.
There was criticism of the previous Labour MP, but why would large numbers of people take it out on his would-be successor. Maybe it was the local party that was being punished in which case it might be worse next time.
In any case, remember that what we are trying to establish is not how biased I am in favour of the SNP. If I assume reversion in Glasgow East, than my estimate of inertia in the Labour contigent from Scotland (some of them are very inert indeed) is increased, as is the Lab over Con majority.
That would add further weight my argument that it needs to be assessed separately.
If my unspecified SNP gains do not materialise the excess of Lab over Con to go into any calculation of a majority or hung parliament increases further. 33? 34? 35? 36? ….!
Can we all agree on NOT FEWER THAN 30.
Now what are we predicting without Scotland?
John,
I don’t think any one factor caused the upset – but if you take all of them together, plus of course the fact that there was a depressed turnout due to its being a by-election – I think we have some idea that the circumstances were more favourable to the SNP, and less favourable to Labour, than they will be in 2010.
Don’t get me wrong, I am far from a Labour man, and as to politics am absolutely indifferent about the result in Glasgow East.
In terms of the likely national picture I find it easier to think about the country as a whole than breaking it down into constituent parts. As I see it the likely final scores accross the UK are something close to:
Norn Iron – 18
SNP – c. 10
Welsh Nat – c. 4
Libdems – 45-50
Others – 2-3
That leaves about 570 seats to share between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. As far as I can see, at the moment the polls suggest the Conservatives should manage around 365, and Labour about 205 – giving a Conservative majority of 80. I think we could see a slight narrowing of the polls before election day, and the final result could see the Conservatives with about 345 and Labour 225 – Conservative majority – 40.
This latest poll is very interesting, but in the North of Scotland voting habits are very different to the South. For example, Caithness has a Lib Dem MP with a strong majority, and Labour trailed by a long way in the last General Election. In the absence of a strong reason to vote Lib Dem, will some of these Lib Dem voters desert the ship for the Conservatives? That would be a logical thing to do if they want change.
Well…it wasn’t that long ago that I was being slammed for claiming that Labour is stronger in Scotland than in Wales. I even had sneers about stating that Scotland will stay red. In Holyrood, the SNP are in charge, but in terms of Scottish Westminster constituencies they are not.
I confidently predict that Labour will hold on to more seats in Scotland than in Wales at the next GE.
The most interesting issue in Scotland is how many seats will the tories win and how many gains will the SNP make? I am now believing that 6 is the absolute maximum and that the SNP might gain two extra seats at best.
If this poll was translated uniformly to all Scottish seats, both Berwickshire and Argyll and Bute become extreme marginals, between Lib Dems and Tory. (less than 0.25%)
However the Scottish electorate are far from uniform. Half the seats have Labour way in front of a second place SNP, and the rest are a hegemony – each of which are quite unique.
At the last election the Lib Dem leader was Scottish – and now their leader is English. The Labour Leader represented an English constituency and now their leader represents a Scottish constituency. Make any difference?
Its been my view for some time that for the SNP to do well in Scotland the Tories would have to be dead certs to win and then the debate to be about who is best to oppose the Tories in Westminster.
If it looks like a close election Scots will back Labour to keep the Tories out, if the Tories are going to win then its who best to fight for Scotland.
Alex’s 20 seat target is a long shot but to do well we just have to get over that watershed point which we have been often close to or above in the last two years.
Right now with a limited Labour recovery we slip back to little or no gain but it doesn’t take a huge swing back to the summer position for our current seats to be well above ten.
Its frustrating for us but the final tally of SNPs really will be determined in a way South of the Border by how far ahead cameron is in april and what that does to labour voters in Scotland.
If it galvanises them then even with the largest SNP vote in a Westminster election in decades we could tread water. If it demoralising them and they stay at home or decide to put their votes elsewhere then we could do very well.
Indeed if the SNP manages to fight and win the argument on “Defending Scotland against the Tories” we could even either prevent or help the Tories winning Scottish seats by garnering or splitting the anti-tory vote.
Peter.
Peter – is the apparent health of Mehgrabi an issue up there still? Ronnie Biggs is still defying expectations down here, and I don’t think it’s an issue for most people, and as for Ernest Saunders, well…
Ernest Saunders is a different case. His crime was victimless (more or less), and he just made a lot of money for himself. Anyway, he wasn’t claimed to be dying, just suffering from an incurable disease (which miraculously disappeared after his release).
Peter,
I think you are quite substantially overestimating the anti-Tory feeling. It exists, but it isn’t especially prevelant and it does not make up many people’s minds about whether to vote Labour or SNP.
I think it is possible, but very unlikely, that the SNP will win more than 10 seats. 12 would be an excellent night for them, and even on a very unrealistic set of figures, with a large SNP lead over Labour, I think 20 is still beyong the bounds of possibility.
Neil – I think the compassion in the justice system links the three releases,
The possibility of it being mis-placed impacts on the level of trust the electorate affords the powers that be. All three cases have harmed that trust.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Meghrabi release had an effect on voters realising their fresh, vibrant Govt was just as subject to the strange mix of gullibility and cynicism that we have become enured to down here.
Saunders’ crime paled in comparison with the manner of his escape from his punishment,
John,
I agree with what you are saying. When Megrahi was released I could have told anyone who wanted to listen that he would still be alive today. For that matter there is a fairly good chance he will be alive come the next election. Could it turn into an issue? Possibly. Hopefully. I was extremely angry when he was released, as I think were most people, but time moves on, and most people quickly forget about the issue, or at least forget most of their disgust.
Not germane to the discussion but for a bit of comparative politics I thought I’d mention that the Conservative party-the Opposition- in Australia is tearing itself apart (as in lots of the front bench resigning). Basically the Leader Malcolm Turnbull is a realist and modernist and so believes in things like Climate change and the need to fight it. He though has the ‘old-fashioned’ sceptics (say, like the UKIP wing of the Tories here) who totally disagree with him and he’s being (probably) dragged down by this ‘the modern world is rubbish’ and farmers know the whole truth lot.
@JACK
Our blood brothers down under will have to grin and bare it regarding Malc Turnbull, or risk going to the dogs. We have born with Dave (or at least the brighter among us have) and its paid divi’s. I certainly dont want a global warming debate kicking off, but I think much of it has an anti capitalist agenda and is a media circus act. However Cameron has by his apparent concern for this and other matters, at least got the BBC and others taking him and the Conservative Party seriously.
@BRING BACK KING HAROLD
I never went away sir, who are you, an imposter I dare say.
Anthony,
Heard on the PB thread, that a YouGov poll for the Telegraph out tonight ?
‘Apparent’ concern…sums him up doesn’t it.
That is what even he own supporters think. (KH)
Question is when will it be apparent to the ‘English and Welsh’ electorates that apparent is all it is.
probably too late for the GE.
Forgive me but we are at the end of a long thread.
@ JIM JAM
It has also been a very long 12 years of deceit, war, debt, and reduction in personal freedom my friend.
The English and Welsh electorates have plenty to consider with regard to those issues. In addition, the Chilcot enquiry may not be the Nuremberg Trials but it already illustrates the depths Blair and Brown (as his 2ic) were prepared to sink to.
Wisdom, Justice, Compassion, Integrity, are the values inscribed on the ceremonial mace with which the Queen hanselled the Scottish Parliament. These are the values which Donald Dewar thought Scottish citizens expected of their government.
Before he became a minister, I was in discussion with Kenny Macaskill on another matter which concerned what you might describe as historic Scottish values and I came to the conclusion then that he was a person of uncommon compassion and integrity.
Whatever the Megrahi issue may cost the SNP in votes, it won’t be much, and it won’t be all one way.
Kenny MacAskill was passed over for the Politician of the Year award because the decision was a quasi-judicial and not a political one (His colleague John Swinney got it because finance is a tough brief right now) though you could argue that it was a political decision to allow it to be so.
There is some evidence that opinion is related to distance. If you got your information direct from the full 20 minute Scottish Parliament statement, you were likely to take a different view from someone who only heard a soundbite on Fox News.
The Christian churches were unusually focused in their support. Those in the tiny Unitarians Church in England were mostly opposed. The very few questioned in Scotland were unanimously – and strongly – supportive.
There were several opportunities for the issue to be kept in the news, which also gave Kenny MacAskill opportunities to explain his position. I think that brought Scottish opinion round to some extent.
It is also the case that Kenny MacAskill is one of the small number of SNP ministers The Scotsman and Labour has, since they were appointed, targeted for personal attack (they daren’t say a word against the Health Secretary) and the intensity and scale of their negativity is counterproductive as anyone with the slightest amount of sales training could tell you.
Where the issue will have a significant effect is in Kenny MacAskill’s own personal vote.
Never forget Falkirk West.
Denis Canavan was a hard working and long serving far left Labour MP who exemplified the values listed at the top of this posting. He was denied selection for the Scottish Parliament and stood as an independent.
Thousands of voters who opposed his political views but respected him were affronted by the way he had been treated and gave him the largest majority in the Scottish Parliament and the highest personal vote.
Constituents take a closer interest in their own MP/MSP than in others. I look forward with interest to see if Kenny Macaskill’s personal vote at the next election betters the average change for his party.
Further to the Megrahi issue, I would like to remind commentator that neither the CCRC, the Justice Secretary nor Megrahi’s doctors said he had only three months to live (with the implication that every subsequent day Megrahi is alive is a calculated insult to the Lockerbie relatives).
The official advice given to MacAskill was that
“The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
And for the record, I do not think the decision to release Abdel Baset al-Megrahi will make the slightest difference to election results. It just does not feature as a key issue for Scots.
John B Dick,
When you say the “churches” in Scotland were supportive of the decision to release Megrahi, you mean the Church of Scotland, right. That may be the largest church in Scotland, but I don’t think that justifies referring to it as “the churches”
Cap’n Scooby,
you do remember about one week after his release it emerged that the doctor who made that “clinical assessment” was paid by the Libyan government to do so.
Neil,
I do not recall that myself, however it is not material to my central point which is that no three -month maximum life span was ever given.
I , personally, have no doubt that Megrahi is and remains a very sick man. I do not think that Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing but it was wrong to release him on compassionate grounds. His appeal, before he was forced to drop it as a condition of compassionate release, would have been an indictment of the investigation carried out by the British & American security services.
I ‘d like to make clear that I am not a swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist on this, m’kay.
However, I fear that we are getting off the topic of polls and polling.
Neil/Neil Turner
10 is what the SNP will have. For the Cons to get 6 is on a par with AS’s 20. Short of half the leadership of the SNP being found in bed with minors or animals, that won’t happen either.
The slow but steady rise of the SNP is one factor in Scottish politics, but it shouldn’t be evaluated on its own without considering the present pattern of regionality and FPTP.
Look at what FPTP did to Scottish Conservatives in 2005. Much the same will happen to them this time. Consider too that the LibDems and SNP, with the same vote between them as Labour got much less than half the number of MP’s.
The SNP will “lose” this election by only increasing their seats by two thirds and getting around the same share of the vote as Labour or maybe even more.
What will be of interest will be to see how many SNP winnable marginals there will then be which are vulnerable to a very small swing. There are 3-4 now, next time there could be up to 30.
What would be the implications of that?
Many on these pages are predicting a Conservative government with a small or no overall majority. In such circumstances, an election is often called early in the hope that the majority could be increased, and because “events, dear boy” with hindsight might make it a matter of regret that the opportunity was missed.
Would DC hesitate if there was a prospect of reducing the 30+ Labour advantage from Scotland by two thirds but there was a risk that they would be replaced by 20 SNP MP’s.?
What could 30 SNP MPs do to make a fuss about independence? They don’t have to concern themselves with English-only legislation or for that matter equivalent matters in Scotland. Scottish MP’s postbags have been empty since devolution. They can devote their whole energies to issues where UK government policy is at odds with Scottish Public opinion.
If there is a majority of SNP MP’s, they may revive the pre-devolution objective: to reconvene elsewhere.
Where would Scottish Labour be?
In the Scottish Parliament they are now on their fifth leader in twelve years and each one has been less successful than the last. The pool of available talent is being used up too fast and it won’t be refreshed enough in the next election when there are bound to be net losses and experienced MSP’s are replaced by novices.
Nationally, a UK election defeat will have New- and Old- Labour blaming each other. The party will not be able to afford an early election and many high profile MP’s will have gone. Morale and membership, already damaged by Iraq and expenses will sink still further.
The Scottish party will itch to be more independant and more left. They will continue with their self indulgent and counter-productive negativity against the SNP.
The Conservatives and Labour are hamstrung by their connections with the London leadership. With poor prospects in the next election, the LibDems are no better off as they are shrinking to their highland heartlands where the SNP competition is strong but not strong enough to diplace them while they are squeezed to the point of being wiped out elsewhere.
The short term prospects for the SNPare bleak too.
The impression will be created by their opponents (who will themselves believe it) that the SNP have “lost” the election.
The danger for the SNP is that much of their membership will believe Labour’s claim that failure to acheive more than half an unrealistic 20 seats or raise the level of support for independence shows that they have lost their way. It shows nothing of the kind.
Have you ever made bread with the older type of yeast?
For a long time it seems as if nothing is happening, and then, suddenly it froths up all at once.
The generation long but inexorable rise of the SNP due entirely to inept and ignorant governments of both parties and a failed constitution at Westminster, has been overlooked because it is masked by FPTP and it is outwith the metropolitain focus of the chattering classes. It is working away just like the yeast.
Notwithstanding present low level of support for independence, these underlying factors are set to continue and it is now to late to prevent independence.
SNP supporters will be disheartened though a combination of an over optimistic estimate of SNP gains, the lack of Scottish polling by region and FPTP. They will be mistaken, but not for the first time.
So who can look for comfort in the Scottish results. Not the Socialists because the voters don’t know which lot are perjurers, and not the Greens unless they win the one seat they have an outside chance in.
FPTP will defeat them and every other party in Scotland except Labour and give Labour false confidence about their real level of support and medium term prospects.
Did I ever mention that I was against FPTP?
Neil
The statement from the Roman Catholics was even more direct, succinct and to the point.
That both they and the CofS should agree on a matter which does not relate to common traditional theological Christian mythology and is in support of an atheist minister is notable.
What was even more interesting is that the Church of Scotland managed to make a statement at all.
The Moderator can’t and won’t do it. In the past, journalists were wont to ask the Bishop of Edinburgh in the mistaken belief that he spoke for the largest protestant church in Scotland.
This time the CofS must have taken the initiative themselves for the statement came from the convener of the appropriate committee. That means they must have met to discuss it first, maybe by chance, maybe not. I’d like to know which.
@ Neil
Happy to diagree with you on Glasgow South. While I agree that Nicola is not the candidate she has a strong influence on campaigning in the area and in my view will be a strong factor.
Don’t see what Harris nailing hiself to the (Blairite) Purnell ship will do for his chances in Glasgow. Nicola got in supported by a huge Muslim anti-war vote remember.
You did not address my point about SNP winning the popular vote in the Euros for the very same constituency boundaries. Obviously a different election but it provies the votes are there to win it..
I guess there is a lot of water to pass under the bridge between now and the GE. Interesting to see what the Gray position on tackling alcohol problems (do nothing) will do to the labour campaign.
PS, Alcohol minimum pricing would be an interesting subject for a future poll
Jack You made the bizarre comment. It is very easy to make people see a blog. I do not get your point,
king harold. I won’t mention William the Conqueror .
John,
How large will Lab lead over Con be in terms of Scottish MPs ?
Actual result in 2005 was Lab 40 (excl. Speaker), Con 1 – a lead of 39. Could this fall to below 30 ? You assert definitely not, I say maybe, and here’s why:
If this were purely a question of Con gains from Lab, we would need to see 5 Con gains to produce 35:6 and a lead of 29. Given that there are only 3 Lab held seats where the Lab/Con lead in 2005 was less than 10%, and only 2 more where it is less than 15%, then we would need to see UNS of at least 7% for that to happen – clearly not supported by current Scottish polls.
However, one thing on which we are agreed is that Lab/Con UNS is irrelevant for Scotland where we not only have a four-party system, but significant regional variations, not to mention a history of tactical voting. So, apart from direct Lab-Con switches, we need to take into account the effect of potential Lab losses/gains to/from third parties and Con gains from third parties. We should also take account of likely movement in the vote shares of third parties which may distort the Lab/Con differential in individual seats. Put simply, this is not just about how many Scots switch from voting Lab to voting Con.
In addition, we have had two nationwide elections in Scotland – 2007 Holyrood and 2009 Euro-Elections, which, whilst not directly applicable to Westminster, do give us better guidance as to the regional and local performance of each party since 2005. One common theme throughout these is the collapse in LD support from the 23% achieved in 2005. Other clear trends include not just the Lab-SNP swing in former Lab heartlands, but also clear evidence that Con support has recovered most in those areas where it may have most impact.
Turning to how this might pan out, the starting point is the 2005 actual result, adjusted for by-elections to give position as at start of GE campaign.
Actual 2005 Result was Lab 40; LD 11; SNP 6; Con 1; Speaker 1.
The five by-elections since 2005 have resulted in 2 Lab holds; 1 Lab gain (from Speaker); and 2 Lab losses, 1 each to LD and SNP to give;
Lab 39; LD 12; SNP 7; Con 1. Current Lab/Con lead of 38.
Lab losses direct to Con reduce the lead by 2, so 4 direct losses produce a lead of 30, and 5 a lead of 28. But, not only do Con gains from third parties reduce the lead, so too do Lab losses to third parties.
For Lab to retain a lead of 30 or more, they need to ensure that the sum of Lab net losses plus Con net gains remains below 9.
If one looks at the electoral landscape in Scotland, one can divide the 59 seats into the following regions: Highlands & Islands; North East (Former Grampian and Tayside regions) + Stirling & Ochil.; Lab heartlands in Central Belt (From Ayrshire to Fife excluding Edinburgh and Stirling); Edinburgh; and Southern Scotland – incl Clydesdale and E Lothian.
Current seats and holders are:
H+I 6 [LD 5; SNP 1]
NE 12 [Lab 5; LD 2; SNP 5]
CB 32 [Lab 28; LD 3; SNP 1]
Ed 5 [Lab 4; LD 1]
SS 4 [Lab 2; LD 1; Con 1]
In the Highlands, LD dominance is likely to continue despite their fall in the polls. While LD may see some slippage in their share of the vote, and possible loss of 1 or even 2 seats, this is most likely to favour SNP and not Lab. This region is almost irrelevant to Lab / Con competition in Scotland, still less for UK.
At the other end, of the four seats in Southern Scotland, only E Lothian can be regarded as “safe”. If Cons emerge from GE with only 3 Scottish MPs, the chances are they will all be in this region. But, since one will be a gain from LDs, the net impact would be to reduce the Lab/Con lead by 3.
Edinburgh is a more interesting region. Based on the 2009 Euros, Lab could lose all four seats, with the spoils being shared out between SNP, Con and LD. At worst (for Lab) the final tally might be Con 3 LD 1, SNP 1, giving a net reduction of Lab/Con lead from +4 to -3. That is unlikely, but it is fairly likely that Lab may lose 2, and Cons gain at least 1. Probable net reduction in Lab/Con lead in this region is in my view 2-4, with 5 possible.
In the North East, all five of the Lab seats are at risk. The two Aberdeen seats may be easier for Lab to retain, but could both fall. Two (Stirling and Ochil) are likely to be LAB/Con/SNP 3-way marginals in this election, with actual outcome too uncertain to predict. One is a very vulnerable Lab/SNP marginal and almost certain to be lost. There is one SNP/Lab marginal, but that will stay SNP. In addition, there are two SNP/Con marginals, which may hinge on how former LD votes swing. The other four seats are unlikely to change hands, but Lab will be a distant third or fourth in all of them. Given the tapestry, it is nigh on impossible to predict the net impact on Lab/Con lead in this region, but it will almost certainly be negative, possibly by as much as 5 or 6.
That leaves the monolithic Central Belt. The best result for Lab here would be to recover its two by-election losses and take Dumbarton E off LD, a net gain of 3. But, as can be seen from the above, that may simply offset losses in the other parts of Scotland, and may be needed to keep the lead at 30. However, how realistic is it that Lab will make those gains and not lose any seats in this region ?
The two by-election losses are tricky. In Dunfermline, LDs have had four, nearly five, years to consolidate their position. It cannot be taken for granted, but I suspect that Lab may find it harder to pull votes back from SNP here than in Glasgow. In Glasgow E, some of the factors which contributed to the 2008 loss may have gone, but John Mason has had two years to dig in.
In Dumbarton, my view is that this will be an LD hold but with a significantly reduced majority. It is possible that both Lab and LD will see their shares fall in this seat, with Con and SNP rising by 2-5% each.
Looking elsewhere in the region, there are a number of SNP targets and one Lab/Con contest which may be very tight. As with other parts of Scotland, a lot could hinge on how the decline in LD vote from 2005 falls between the other three parties. Overall, I would expect the net position in this region to be neutral as between Lab/Con, but it too could deliver a negative contribution.
In summary, I think there are enough seats across Scotland which Lab could lose, or which Con could win as to make it far from certain that Scotland will deliver a Westminster contingent with a Lab/Con lead in excess of 30. Indeed, it is even possible that Labour may fail to win 30 seats overall in Scotland
Apologies for such a long post. Trust others find it informative.
Paul
@PAUL
Dont apologise Paul, very interesting reading. A very different and in some respects more complex state of affairs than England.
John B Dick,
OK, I didn’t realise you were including the Roman Catholic Church. Even so, its only 2 out of who knows how many.
On the subject of 6 Scottish Conservative MPs, I don’t think it is likely, but certainly not Gloy Plopwellist. And since the top 6 most likely seats do not include any currently held by the SNP, the salmon and the sturgeon pumping animals would not really have an effect. In fact, the better the SNP do, the better for the Conservatives. I’m thinking particularly about seats like East Renfrewshire, D&G and Stirling, where the SNP splitting the Labour vote will help the Conservatives.
Denis,
If we were to go on the Euro results then the next parliament could see UKIP as the official opposition. A clearer case could not be found of split voting at different elections. I can categorically say that the votes for the Westminster election will not be the same as those for the European election.
Also, Tom Harris is very popular in Glasgow South – I know this because I campaign there on a semi regular basis. We can agree to disagree, and only time will tell who is right. But I would be prepared to put substantial money on Labour holding Glasgow South.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned (I couldn’t find anything) but does anybody know when we will find out the results of the ComRes poll?
Paul H-J
Your regional division is a valuable aid to understanding. I don’t just want Scottish Polls, I want regional Scottish polls.
I agree with nearly all of what you say, many of these other changes are possible, and indeed I made some allowance for them in not counting all the Con and SNP eggs which might or might not hatch. I do think you should have added in the speaker at the beginning though.
I also agree that bye-election reversion should not automatically be assumed as it was in the 1950’s. We don’t hear much talk of the “protest vote” these days and class loyalty and getting out your vote on the day is not all that matters. I would pick the other one of the two, but It wouldn’t surprise me if you were right or if we both were despite the fact that outwith the Highlands the LibDem vote is crumbling.
It’s all very speculative, but essentially I just don’t think that the number of constituencies changing hands will be as great as you are counting on.
I can see the possibility of Lab and LibDem gains you mention, but they are long shots, little surer than the Con hold we are are all assuming which would hardly be considered safe were it not that the focus is on Labour losses. If the SNP or even the LibDems were within reach, we might be looking at that more carefully.
As I acknowledged, Cons have prospects beyond the one probable gain I allowed for, but partisan optimism in the counting of chickens needs to be discounted and that applies to the SNP too.
I am encouraged by your and others comments which show that my basic point is accepted. National projections of majorities need to take account of several factors important to the interpretation of Scottish churns. That there could be up to a surplus of up to 33 Labour MP’s from Scotland (a majoriity of the Scottish MP’s) has important consequenses, beyond Scotland, and for all parties.
Neil
Wikipedia had CofS 42% + RC 16% = 58%
The Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office is a significant influence in that it draws issues to the attention of clergy and laymen engaged in management or responsible for producing communications to the members of most Christian congregations and those of other denominations.
Denis Donoghue
As a retired NHS Chief Financial Officer I can say that I would protest any suggestion that my appreciation of the Health Secretary is second to that of any of the SNP members on these pages.
You will note that that in general nobody but Labour ever wins in Glasgow, but that Govan has fallen to the SNP before. In each case it has been to a high profile candidate. I know nothing of the PPC, and the Euro vote shows what is possible as you say, but Scottish voters have taken to split voting and we know that many won’t vote for the SNP for Westminster.
It’s not relevant in England of course, but the fact that the SP elections give the voter the chance to split the vote on a single visit to the polling station, trains them to consider negative voting (aka tactical voting) at other elections. Together with the loss of class loyalty (except in Glasgow), that makes for uncertainty.
Jim Mather in Argyll is also shadowed by his PPC apprentice, and he may well win against a LibDem. I’d agree that if you were trying to get elected in Glasgow on nothing much more than that you couldn’t be in a better place than Govan or have a better mentor than Nicola Sturgeon.
I just don’t think it’s enough.
Neil
“The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Most Revd David Chillingworth, said that the decision sent the world “an important and positive message about our values”, and was “a brave political choice taken in the face of strong pressure from outside Scotland.”
But you are right that it wasn’t a unanimous Kirk view – just the view of the 3 kirks which cover most of Scotland’s religious community.
The Wee Frees took a different line
“The release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Megrahi, brings the British judicial system into further disrepute. If Megrahi is guilty of the murders he should have been put to death, not released: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Gen 9:6).
But is Megrahi guilty of the murders? It is a feature of our judicial system at present that high profile murder cases all too often lead to unsatisfactory convictions, which are then appealed, or debated, for years to come. Often the discussion centres, not on whether the person concerned is guilty, but on whether the correct procedures were followed – as if justice were some vast and expensive game, the rules of which were more important than the crime itself. With God’s blessing, one would expect simple, clear-cut convictions in cases leading to the death penalty, as with Achan (Jos 7). But our rulers, by abolishing the death penalty, have implicated themselves in the blood of those who are murdered, and now God is entangling them in their errors and making them a laughingstock to other nations. “Thou art become guilty in thy blood that thou hast shed . . . therefore have I made thee a reproach unto the heathen, and a mocking to all countries” (Ezek 22:4).”
Feel free to agree with their stance (it won’t make any difference to the SNP holding Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
OLDNAT
I hope you are right. Sunday ferries will work to your advantage now.
One of the two things we miss having left there is observing the process of social change in respect of the decline in Sabbath Observance and thus the opportunity to better understand how such changes come about and are eventually accepted.
The other thing we miss is Charles MacLeod’s Black Pudding. Do not miss any opportunity to obtain some.
Before the 1997 general election there was a public debate promoted by an evangelical Christian organisation at which the Labour MP seeking re-election, Calum Macdonald, and the serial candidates Jamie McGrigor (Con) and Mitchison (ScotlLibDem) were present as was the SNP’s Anne Lorne Gilles.
The topics discussed included ALL the liberal issues which for most people had been settled in the 1960’s when Roy Jenkins was at the Home Office: Divorce, Abortion, Hanging, Homosexuality, and Religion in education etc. The candidates were even asked if they were in favour of an Established (state supported)Church.
I was impressed with the imaginative way in which the Labour and Conservative candidates sidestepped the questions without giving offence, and the fact that, the LibDem recognised, as did the audience that there was no point in him pretending that his views were not at odds with those of the audience.
Anne Lorne Gilles, herself divorced, who had been presenting herself as imbued in Gaelic culture and had made the most of her West Highland connections, caused great offence by her frank and unequivocal defence of liberal values.
That was to be expected from the easily ignored and fourth placed LibDem, but the perceived incongruity from “one of our own” was too much for some members of the audience. Several were hyperventilating, one was barking like a dog. Only then did I fully understand the meaning of the expression “barking mad.”
I took note of the position of the fire escapes and considered the risks of personal injury and to employment security as well as the prospects of success if I chose to intervene to protect ALG in the event of violence and the loss of my self respect if I let that cup pass from me.
In the lobby afterwards, Winnie Ewing likened the event to “Christians and lions,” but of course it was the lions that got eaten.
The following evening, at her own election meeting attended mostly by SNP members, ALG was still visibly shaken from the experience and her hopes of election were receding.
You may know, thoug I do not, whether and if so in what way that was the end of her political ambitions.
I mentioned values in an earlier post. I’d vote for Anne Lorne Gilles whatever party she stood for. I’d vote for her on TV shows I don’t watch.
The record of the SNP in the constituency is not beyond reproach.
For many years until he was replaced by Donald Stewart the sole Labour MP in the North and West was Malcolm Macmillan. His daughter, who is active in the Labour Party on the mainland, still bears a grudge on account of the campaign tactics in the election in which her father lost his seat. She claims he lost because the Labour government was unfairly held accountable for liberal legislation, notably David Steel’s Abortion Act.
On the day before the 2003 Scottish Parliament election I was canvassed by an SNP councillor who knew that I had voted for ALG. After claiming that the SNP were not indulging in negative campaigning, he contradicted that by focusing on the Labour MSP’s record on “family values” issues (Clause 2b).
Although I had intended to vote for the SNP candidate, whom I knew personally and respected, your councillor had managed to persuade me to vote Labour.
OldNat
Actually, the full text might me more appropriately be noted by the Iraq inquiry and Tony Blair, if you regard Trident as an idol.
“Ezek.22
1.[4] Thou art become guilty in thy blood that thou hast shed; and hast defiled thyself in thine idols which thou hast made; and thou hast caused thy days to draw near, and art come even unto thy years: therefore have I made thee a reproach unto the heathen, and a mocking to all countries.”
John B Dick
OldNat
Though nothing is more appropriate for Megrahi than Matthew 25
[36] ….I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord,
[39] [Or] when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
If Megrahi had been able to stick around a bit longer he might have been better off. The Beatson Hospital in Glasgow has developed a promising treatment.
John B Dick
I’m certainly not going to trade Bible quotes with someone whose memory of Bible Class is so good.
Oldnat & John B Dick:
With all this old-timey religion mixed with politics, I almost feel like I’m back home in Northern Ireland!
John,
I know that Christian values still have traction in the Hebrides – this is often the case in remoter / harsher environments where one is daily brought face to face with God’s creation.
But do the Churches still have influence with the voters on the mainland ? Glasgow used to be a prime example of tribal political (and football) following based on religuous belief, with Catholics voting Labour and Protestants Tory – a similar situation also existed in Liverpool.
I believe one factor which may have damaged Labour in the 2007 SP elections is that they had managed to upset the Cardinal. Could a similar fate befall them again ? I doubt the church is bothered much by by-elections, but at a general election, if there are sermons on the inquities of “modern” morality, will this not have some affect ?
One factor that could spark such an attitude from teh churches in general could well be the Chilcot enquiry if it makes increasingly clear that the country was taken into an unjust war on the basis of deceit.
‘John,
I know that Christian values still have traction in the Hebrides – this is often the case in remoter / harsher environments where one is daily brought face to face with God’s creation.’
Having recently come back from another Western Isles holiday I like the word ‘traction’; yes, the fundamentalists are still there but I enjoyed using the Sunday Ferry with many other people. The first Sunday Ferry I note was greeted by a handful of protesters against the Sunday sailing but a lot more was there to greet it. It’s a battle up there but slowly civilisation is creeping in (even had nice meal with alcohol at Leverburgh on a Sunday…)
@JACK, JOHN, CAPT SCOOBY,OLD NAT& PAUL.
I an bound to say that after drinking in the very considerable cultural differences between Saxon, Celt, Pict, Northern Irish Scot, Viking, Jute and Dane, the need for further social experimentation seems to be unwarranted.
OldNat
Or a Unitarian atheist
Paul H-J
Religious influence is even more regional than the LibDems. There are three significant groups and otherwise religion is not important in society or politics.
That does not mean that the churches are not influential when they articulate the values of society, and their contribution to the Constitutional Convention was significant and hugely important.
Firstly, there is the tribalism of the working class Catholic/Labour or Protestant/Tory division you mention. This is disappearing like snow and a few concentrated areas remain in the West in places like Glasgow North and in Lanarkshire. It has more to do with local/family tradition and football than paying attention to what religious leaders have to say.
Fifty years ago when you applied for a job – not only your first job – you would be asked in most companies “What School did you go to?” If you went to the wrong kind of school you wouldn’t get the job.
That still happens, but it isn’t as common as it was. The debate now is that we will have to have Islamic schools if we retain Catholic schools, and whether or not the division encourages football viiolence. The Catholic schools are not as English denominational schools are, they are within the state system.
The issue of “Choice” as in England could hardly be less relevant to Scottish demography, geography, religion, and educational practice.
A petition from an 11 year old who attends a Roman Catholic school is currently being processed by the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee. It seems that the school’s religious education is narrower than it should be. I doubt if any legisative change is necessary, but the inspectors may send the headmaster to the naughty corner.
The second group is some 15000 members of small Sabbatarian presbyterian denominations in four or five constituencies in the Western highlands and Islands. The Reformation didn’t reach the Uists and Barra, and The Enlightenment didn’t reach the highlands and islands.
Thanks to the Irish experience, religious leaders on both sides are determined that there shall be no inter-community conflict. The other lot are going to suffer in the next world, so there is no need to make them suffer in this.
My home in Stornoway was built C1920 as the first RC church there but never consecrated. It was set on fire at the altar and not by teenage vandals but by leaders of the community. The replacement was a wooden hall without road frontage till about 30 years ago.
At some point in the last two decades, those who are opposed to sabbatarianism have realised that they are in the majority and have “come out” Support for the traditionalists is fading and they are less and less shown respect. The Sunday ferries issue in Lewis signals the defeat of the traditionalists and they know it.
The Lewisman still thinks he should be entitled to apply for a job anywhere in the world, but only locals should get better paid jobs in the Islands. It isn’t racial.
There is no political significance. Some years ago the Western Isles Conservatives opportunistically selected a Christian fundamentalist candidate from outside the area who had bizarre views on a number of issues. After the intervention of a senior party official he was deselected and stood as an independent garnering only a handful of votes.
The third and last group is where religion and values do matter in politics.
The respectable, comfortably off, probably elderly burgess in Edinburgh or Glasgow used to be solidly Conservative. Driven by a sense of duty to make a contriution to society, all of them participated in charitable, Church of Scotland or local Conservative party activities and they were guaranteed to vote. These were not fundamentalist free marketeers, still less UKIP English nationalists, but one-nation Conservatives. In a two party class based system, they clearly didn’t fit in to the Labour Party pre-NewLabour.
For these people, Thatcherite selfishness and greed was not just repellent and unchristian. It was worse than that, it was in bad taste.
I knew one elderly widower for whom the unlooked for benefit of the polltax, contrasted with the effect on his houekeeper’s household, brought to an end a lifetime political loyalty. The thought that his vote could be bought was offensive.
This group are dying off, but there are more of them left than vote Conservative. The LibDems get there share in Argyll and Edinburgh, Labour in Milngavie and Bearsden and Kelvinside. North of the central belt the SNP will pick up what the LibDems don’t. If the Cons could attract these non-doctrinaire former supporters they could double their vote perhaps, but FPTP would see to it that the electoral benefit was much less.
King Harold
That’ll be Gin, Whisky, Whiskey and Vodka, then?
John,
Well this Catholic Unionist has visited the chapel in Barra, but not that in Lewis, as well as many others in Scotland (not to mention large chunks of the globe). I recall a lovely church in Campbelltown – your neck of the woods I believe ?
It seems that the Patrician wing of the party in Scotland were more affronted by the arrivistes of the 1980s than their counterparts in England, notwitstanding Scotland producing some af Mrs Thatcher’s most ardent acolytes. But from my experience, the Scottish aristocracy were always “wetter”, hence the number of noble-born Lab and LD MPs / candidates – unheard of in England. My family were shocked when a friend’s neighbour stood for Labour in Berwickshire – and that was when Heath was still leader.
One factor you may not have taken into account is that – despite the failure of the Tory Toffs campaign in Crewe – Cameron represents an Etonian recapture of the Tory party from the bourgeois. The true significance of this is in the emphasis on social values rather than pure monetary measures. These are old Tory values, but many people whose memories do not go beyond the 1980s may never have associated them with the Conservative party.
This may explain elements of the Tory resurgence north of the border. I don’t expect an earthquake, but there are signs that the type of folk whom you depict as having drifted to LDs in particular may well be coming home.
Paul H-J
I can’t say I have seen any sign of the Tory returnees yet, and as these people are cautious by nature (you could describe them as conservative) I wouldn’t expect to until they saw a Conservative government in action and liked what they saw.
That is certainly something we should watch out for.
There is a role in Scotland for a party of the right, where the opportunity for parties other than the largest one to influence – or even particpate in – government, is significant whereas at Westminster it hardly exists at all.
Bavarianisation and rebranding would be a solution, as would would independence. The factors you mention also need to be recognised and much depends how the competition is positioned in the market.
The SNP are the inheritors of the pragmatic non-doctrinaire Butskillism of the time when we had Health Ministers like that radical leftie Enoch Powell, and a Deputy PM such as Denis Healey, CND opponent ready to press the nuclear button. That niche was vacant, and sooner or later some party was bound to fill it.
Large parties hold together wide coalitions. Small ones don’t get elected to government. Sadly, party discipline is seen as a virility test for leaders in the Westminster culture. TB thought he could take any client’s brief, (from Formula 1 to Iraq) and present it in a way which would persuade his own party and the nation to find in favour of his client.
DC has castigated GB for being “not in control of his party.” Does that mean that If I vote for a Conservative MP someone else is “in control” of his actions, and the same would be true of Labour if GB could only get his act together?
If so, why bother voting.
‘@PAUL HJ
I come from the lower middle class southern English Tory background which cherished Thatcher. I must confess I do believe the lady had her place in history at that particular time.
However, the spiv and estate agent class which became strong within the Tories has done the party no favors at all. Tory leaders from very patrician and wealthy backgrounds have frequently been the best PMs in the One Nation tradition. One does look to Cameron and Bullingdon buddies to restore this.
I cannot abide inverted snobbery from these lefties who bang on about Eton but make nothing of Fettes or Loretto, probably because they have never heard of them. Anyway, it would be a real pleasure to see some support come back north of the border.
@ANTHONY WELLS
Andrew Grice has just blogged COM RES poll in tomorrows Indy give Conservative 16 point lead. No other figures.
This on top of Angus Reid does not leave Ipsos Mori with egg on its face, more like an omlette I think.
@ANTHONY WELLS
Sorry Anthony I should have cheched the date its about 3 months out of date. Its me with the eggy face.
“I cannot abide inverted snobbery from these lefties who bang on about Eton but make nothing of Fettes or Loretto, probably because they have never heard of them. Anyway, it would be a real pleasure to see some support come back north of the border.”
I like to bang on about how both types of school are bad. Is that OK?
No it is not. Parents have the right to spend their own money on their childs education and future.
If on the other hand they critisise private education and yet send their own kids to such a school, they are hypocrits of the worse kind. A number of Labour MPs fit into this category.
Does this answer your question?
@JACK CORNISH
Just in case you are in any doubt, I mention the 2 excellent Scottish schools because Blair and Darling (amoung other Labour “toffs”) attended them. How different is this in terms of privilege to Eton?
King Harold
The “spiv and estate agent” tendency is certainly what wiped out the Scottish Tories. They respected the values I mentioned further up this page and also a sense of duty to serve the community. They were slow to accept change, but on many issues were ahead of their English counterparts for all that.
That Harold Macmillan and patricians of his era could keep them happy and thole the Primrose League and the Monday Club at the same time is a much underrated political achievement, and they also, not so long ago, garnerd the majority of the popular vote, the only party ever to do so in any part of the UK.
TB didn’t ever do that and nor did MT for all their large majorities did they? How come succesive Conservative leaders let it happen?
@JOHN B DICK
I think the reason for the Tory slide to Jeffrey Archer ect was simply the grammar school kid on the make. I should be careful here as I am one of them, however never a Tory politician.
The reason I stated my own background to Paul was to make it clear that I am not the Winchester educated son of an Admiral or some such. This class thing which seems to afflict Labourites so much shows me that being able but from a humble background does not guarentee a good politician, or indeed a decent human being. Further, being able from a privileged background does not guarentee a “wrong un” either.
Supermac, being the prime example.
@John,
There we go with the “wiped out” Tories thing again. The Tories are significantly down on where they were in Scotland 30 years ago, but they are by no means “wiped out” on 15-20% vote share, any more than Labour would be “almost wiped out” on 20-25% vote share in England. FPTP exaggerates the difficulty of the Scottish Tory position but they are the third largest party in Scotland.
I can’t claim any special insight but I suspect the animosity many Scots felt/feel towards Thatcher had everything to do with her policy toward loss-making state owned industry. Parts of Scotland had “more than average” amounts of such industry and the pain they felt, although no different to the pain felt everywhere from Bristol to Swansea to Wigan to Tyneside, was portrayed as some sort of deliberate wound inflicted on Scotland by some malicious English Tory cabal.
King Harold,
Your comment about Fettes and Loretto was proved most deliciously right by Jack Cornish – “I like to bang on about how both types of school are bad. ”
Either he meant both English and Scottish public schools are bad, or more probably, he demonstrated the gaping hypocrisy at the heart of New Labour – for example you did not mention Westminster or St Pauls, whose alumni sit on the front benches of all three parties.
From experience, one of the key distinctions between a good grammar school and a great public school (and by no means all private schools fit either category) is that the latter focus on producing pupils with all-round abilities and character – in particular self-assurance and true leadership – rather than blind adherence to academic league tables.
You do not need to be fantastically clever to be a great leader. But you do need to have a much broader understanding of how the world works and the limitations of one’s own abilities.
We ensure our children see all sides of life, from grim estates to grand estates, so that they can appreciate not just how fortunate they are, but also that they have a responsibility to use their position properly. That after all is what noblesse oblige always meant.
As to inverted snobbery – I have an anecdote from my youth in which I first encountered this malign facet of the English class system. I had uttered but two words, yes and no, to my TA sergeant, and the whole platoon were told they had a Toff joining them.
King Harold,
I should point out that I am neither rich nor titled, but my father, who was a grammar school boy, firmly believed that the best inheritance he could give us was a proper education.
Personally, I don’t blame the grammar school PMs for our country’s decline. It has far more to do with individualism and the atomisation of society. That began in the 60s. That it apparently had its heyday under Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s has more to do with generational changes than “Thatcherism”. Many forget the direction this country was heading when she first put a brake on the ratchet effect of socialism.
Strange, but I never realised quite how strongly felt class divisions were on the right of politics – grammar vs public, ’spivs and estate agents’, ‘lower middle class’, ’sons of admirals’….when does it all stop? Personally, I have absolutely no idea what class I am, nor do I care.
As we’re on the 130th post on a dying thread, I thought I would flag up this interesting quote from yesterday by Stephen Greenhalgh, leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and head of the Conservative councils’ innovation unit.
‘My mates are all in the shadow Cabinet, waiting to get those [ministerial] boxes, being terribly excited. I went to university with them, they haven’t run a piss-up in a brewery,’ he said. ‘They’re going to get a department of state, in one case running the finances of the nation.’
Apparently he is unimpressed by the quality of our likely next government.
Neil A
The scenario you describe is a comforting myth believed only by English Tories. Few of those who lost their heavy industry employment (far from all of it nationalised) and found it difficult or impossible to get other work had voted Conservative at least in the immediately pre-Thatcher decades.
If it was a such a good idea to put all these people out of work, how is it that the Thatcher government didn’t manage to fix them with alternative employment? Did they try and fail because they wern’t as smart as they thought they were, or because their theories didn’t fit the real world? Either way, they failed.
The developments described by King Harold were what caused the decline of support and membership of the Conservative Party in Scotland.
Cons may be the third party in Scotland, but have you seen what FPTP did to them last time? I’ve never heard the LbDems say “Oh well, things aren’t so bad, we are the third party in England/UK”
To go from being the usual party of government and the only party to get more than half of the vote to being less popular than the rebranded DDR Commuunists needs some explanation.
Did nobody in the higher levels of the party notice because they were focused on England? If that is so, how well informed was their management of the Scottish economy and other issues? Is that why the SNP have grown from 2% (as was quoted here) to be on the brink of the FPTP breakthrough in the election after next?
Have lessons been learned? So what initiatives are planned to reverse the decline? I’ve explained how it can easily be sorted.
This is a management issue, not a political issue. The fact that the politics is crap is no excuse for not being elected. Lots of elected governments are crap aren’t they?
PaulH-J/King Harold
Schools are a totemic issue in the Westminster playground and a world away from Scottish schools outside big conurbations which were of necessity comprehensive in both ability and social class centuries before the term was invented. In the real world the only predictor of academic success is the level of parental education.
I’d better declare that I was at a Private School (in England that would be called a Public School) and in my year and the year above four boys who would become MPs in different parties, two murderers, a spy, …
They aren’t really the third party in Scotland though, at least, not at Westminster elections. The Conservatives are the fourth party in term of support there.
Anthony Wells
“The Conservatives are the fourth party in term of support there.”
Not according to the latest YouGov poll – Con 18% LD 12%.
“I have absolutely no idea what class I am, nor do I care. ”
Alec, that means you, whatever class you are, are not of the Ruling Class. You are precisely where The Ruling Class would want and expect you to be.
The Ruling Class is not necessarily, and hasn’t nessarily been Conservative, or elected by the people.But it has largely been educated in the private sector, ironically known as “public” schools.
I myself am a product of such an education (though with the benefit of a direct grant-funded scholarship, free travel and meals etc)
What irritates me is that lessons in communication skills and leadership tools are eminently learnable. I mean, if a twelve year old can learn it… (and that’s when those lessons start in the private sector, if not before)
Hope that passes the Comments policy test – even at post number 13something
Editorial on latest YouGov poll in northern marginals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6673267/The-marginals-that-will-decide-our-destiny.html
Telegraph poll, national figures:
Tories 39 per cent, Labour on 29 and the Lib Dems on 19.
it is spun as a great poll for Conservatives, showing better support in marginals, but national lead is down 4% on last You Gov survey.
And apparently great news that Labour’s lead is down to 2 points among the “working class”, voters who presumably know their place well enough to self-identify. Or is there some way of grouping people objectively in the “working class” by asking pertinent questions (such as what sort of school did you attend, how well off were mummy and daddy, are you good with your hands, how much do you earn, etc)
Perhaps Alec could familiarise himself with the questions so that he can oblige the Telegraph by identifying where he thinks he should belong.
John TT,
“.. communication skills and leadership tools are eminently learnable. I mean, if a twelve year old can learn it…”
I believe the Jesuits used to ask for the child at 7 in order to shape them.
Actually, it’s all about self-belief. Like languages, if it is not taught at a young age, it becomes an increasingly harder skill to acquire in later life.
While parents are inherently important to the process, it is true that if you put a child of whatever background into a good public school early enough, it will be difficult to tell them apart at 18.
The sad reality is that most (but not all) state secondary schools do not even try to address these skills, while certain educational philosophies prevalent among state primary schools positively discourage it – because it does require pitting children against each other to find those innate skills.
And, with the best will in the world, not everybody is cut out to be a leader – just as not everyone has a flair for art or music or science.
Paul – I’m sure we could have a long and interesting conversation on the subject of how leadership, confidence can be learned.
Sure, it’s easier for a young brain to take it in. If the first thing you hear at the age of 11 is that you are part of an elite, then self-belief/confidence will grow much better than if you are told that you are the same as everyone else and have no divine right toi think well of yourself.
There are state schools whose ethos allows kids to grow, whose sense of competition feeds leadership learning. They are few and far between and distort the housing market!
My view is that any-one at any age can learn the very simple techniques that can level the playing field a bit.
John
Everyone has a “divine” right to think well of themselves. That is one of the central messages of Christianity !
My dig at educationalists is at those who breed defeatism by telling those from poorer backgrounds that they are victims of the system and should have no hope.
But we are a long way from Scottish polls – the only even tenuous link I can find to bring us back on track is that for nearly twenty years Tories in Scotland have been taught to believe that they are hated and should not entertain hope of electoral success. Recovering from a generation of defeatism requires a level of character and self-belief which cannot be learned overnight, so it will perforce take time for the party to rebuild its position. But the first steps have been taken, and I am sure that an important further step will be taken at next GE. Even 3 MPs is distinctly more successful than just 1.