Conservative polling in Scotland
There is a headline in Scotland on Sunday of “Scots Tories set to gain new seats”. The story underneath is based on polling conducted by ORB for the Conservative party in the party’s 11 target seats (their one current seat, and ten they hope to gain). I always urge caution with polls commissioned by political parties – while the polling companies are all reputable outfits who are not going to produce dodgy figures, the interpretation of those figures by the political parties is a different matter.
We haven’t seen the full tables from ORB yet, so we can’t see whether there was anything strange about the questions, but at first glance the results seem plausible. The poll found just under 60% of people expected Cameron to become Prime Minister after the election, which seems perfectly reasonable given the ORB poll for the whole of Scotland found 67% expected the Conservatives to win the election.
The poll also found 54% of respondents thought that David Cameron was a better leader than Gordon Brown on 46%. While that appears good for the Conservatives, I’d add some caveats. Firstly, while we haven’t seen the tables yet 54+46=100 – so it was either a forced choice question, and doesn’t necessarily reflect any great enthusiasm for David Cameron, or the figures are excluding an unknown quantity of don’t knows and fewer than 54% of respondents actually gave a positive response about David Cameron. Neither would a straight choice between the Conservative leader and Labour leader necessarily reflect voting intention – I’m sure many SNP and Liberal Democrat supporters will have an opinion on whether Cameron or Brown are more capable leaders, but it won’t stop them voting SNP or Liberal Democrat – and half of the 10 Scottish seats the Conservatives hope to gain are currently held by the Lib Dems or SNP.
With that in mind, the finding that 73% of respondents thought that Labour looked “tired and failing” shouldn’t be a great surprise – Labour only got 29% of the vote in these seats in 2005 anyway. The most interesting statement is that 53% of respondents agreed that “it would be good for Scotland if there were more Conservative MPs from Scotland elected at the next general election” – it’ll be interesting to see what question was actually asked.
The Scotland on Sunday article said that the Conservatives claimed the poll showed they had a real chance of winning. Apart from that interesting last question that would appear to show some latent Conservative support, it really doesn’t. However much people think that more Conservative MPs would be good, or that David Cameron would be better than Gordon Brown, the Conservatives won’t get any more MPs in Scotland without more votes (and to be fair to the Conservatives, that seems to be largely the message that Peter Duncan is putting across in his comments in the piece).
Labour’s response to the poll was that the Conservatives had failed to publish details on how people would actually vote, and they’ve got something of a point. It may well be that the poll didn’t include a voting intention question, so the call to publish them may well be just empty posturing – but at the end of the day, the one question that would actually have shown whether or not the Conservatives were on the way to winning new seats in Scotland would have been a voting intention question, and it’s conspicious by its absence.
UPDATE: The tables are now up on ORB’s website.
Filed under: Conservatives, ORB, Scotland
Anthony
I think there is a bit of play acting here from the Tories.
When the ORB poll details came out on (on 9 Dec or thereabouts), the silliness of the questions was discussed then. That the Sunday Times chose to refer to the ORB poll in an article today is a “coincidence”.
The SoS story makes no reference to any pollster. I suspect that it may be a puff piece which hopes to suggest that this data did come from a proper poll.
We’ll need to see whether ORB publish details for another poll. It might be considered odd, however, for the Tories to have commissioned two separate polls for them in December – one for Scotland as a whole, and another in their target seats.
First in the field for the 2009 dodgy poll prize.
The Scotsman blog comments on this include the suggestion that Nationalists should vote tactically to dislodge the sole Tory; that several right-leaning voters won’t vote for a London controlled party; that Thatcher is far from forgotten. (Neither is Culloden of course and the English are unfairly blamed for that too)
However, there is the following choice equidistant if not entirely non-partisan comment which uniquely captures the essence of Scottish opinion.
” Changing Labour for the Tories is like turning your used underpants inside out and then putting them back on. Feels nice for a few minutes until you notice the smell hasn’t gone away.”
“… it would be good for Scotland if there were more Conservative MPs from Scotland elected at the next general election”
There is an influential body of opinion within the Conservative party itself that very much hopes there is a choice of more than their present sole MP to serve in the Scotland Office.
It is entirely possible that a critical number of Dumfriesshire,Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituents would agree with the proposition above as well as agreeing with the exact converse, as might Communists and nationalists of the sort that are excluded from the SNP.
”Changing Labour for the Tories is like turning your used underpants inside out and then putting them back on. Feels nice for a few minutes until you notice the smell hasn’t gone away.”
————-
Very funny and, sadly, all too true.
Todays Blair is tomorrows Major.
Todays Cameron is tomorrows Brown.
And so it goes on.
Con MP’s in Scotland: 0 to 4. Most likely, 2
Shockingly, I agree with OldNat.
These questions do seem to be clutching at straws, however much I might wish the Tories to make progress in Scotland.
1 or 2 of the straws might just be useful; maybe they’d affect someone’s decision when choosing which box, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on it.
Richard Manns
“Shockingly, I agree with OldNat.”
I am very agreeable!
@ David In France
“Todays Blair is tomorrows Major.
Todays Cameron is tomorrows Brown. ”
Actually, it would be pretty much impossible for Cameron to rechart Brown or Blair.
Blair and Brown both started their premierships without a massive recession around them.
Cameron can’t borrow like Brown did. Our credit rating won’t stand it.
Nor can he continue the previous government’s spending plans for 2 years like Blair did; the gilts were jittery enough post-PBR (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/files/2009/12/sg2009120952179.gif). If the future Cameron & Co stood up in their first Budget and said “no change here”, the gilts markets would explode.
Cameron will have to bring in big changes and annoy a lot of people simply because whichever party wins this year, coasting is not an option. To borrow the hip word of the 2000s, running a current account deficit of 12.8% GDP is not “sustainable”.
Anthony-could you explain why my post at 7.15pm is held in moderation, whilst Mark Senior’s on the same topic, is not.
Thanks
Because Mark posted after I’d logged off. It’s a thread about Scottish polling, not an opportunity to argue about whether Labour (or the Conservatives) have a good economic record/policy.
David and Richard were already verging off topic, but at least they were still talking about public support for governments!
OK Anthony-fair enough.
Thanks
I am afraid that we will have to get used to all of the parties producing dodgey polls over the next few months; they are just another political weapon and i don’t think that ultimately they will prove to reveal anything significant other than a few lines of strategy.
As for Scottish polls, as an English person for me they have as much significance as those in Italy or Belgium. Like many English people I am so bored with Scottish chauvanism and really do wish the Nationalists well in prising themselves away from the union. Scottish results in the general election will not have any great impact.and the Tories are nuts for drawing attention to their ridiculous efforts north of the border. And as for the Thatcher factor I think it’s brilliant that she’s still such a potent hate figure for those on the left, it just proves what pygmies all that have follwed her since truly are.
Hardpressedtqy
“As for Scottish polls, as an English person for me they have as much significance as those in Italy or Belgium.”
News to me that the Italians and Belgians send MPs to Westminster!
You may wish to consider where chauvinism actually is demonstrated in any post on this thread.
@ Anthony
Sorry, my bad…
Anthony
On the last (very long!) thread, I mentioned that I’d been looking at the TNS/System 3 Scottish polls, which overestimated SNP & Lab votes in the month before the 2007 election.
I asked whether face-to-face polling showed any tendency for respondents to focus on the largest parties. Is there any info on this?
— BACK ON TOPIC —
I wonder if this poll isn’t actually for close inspection, as I suspect most people who read that headline won’t look at the methodology.
Perhaps the Tories are trying to convince Scots that it’s “worth” voting Tory; are they betting that there are quite a few more Scots who don’t vote Tory because “the Tories won’t win here”?
I don’t know whether it would work much, but I do remember once seeing a LD poster with a sea of gold across the UK, with a tagline saying that this would be what they’d win if everyone who said they’d vote LibDem DID vote LibDem.
Hardpressedtqy
“Scottish results in the general election will not have any great impact.”
If you mean that there isn’t likely to be much change, that’s true, but if you think that a majority of Labour MP’s over Conservatives of 30+ is not likely to be significant in relation to the overall majority or lack of it, (whoever wins) then you are surely mistaken.
There is always the case of a Conservative minority government in which any odd extra seats will be sorely needed and much welcomed. However I think this poll covers up a lot of wishful thinking. I would be surprised if the Conservatives got half the seats they are aiming at. They’re not the only opposition in Scotland and not even the most popular opposition at that, and I doubt that situation is going to get better any time soon.
So – they’re right to look for odd extra seats in case they need them, but there’s probably better places to go find them (and better ways to go about it).
Richard Manns
“Perhaps the Tories are trying to convince Scots that it’s “worth” voting Tory; are they betting that there are quite a few more Scots who don’t vote Tory because “the Tories won’t win here”?”
There are some on the centre-right who cannot bring themselves to vote a party which is perceived to be ignorant of Scottish needs and sensibilities who won’t vote Labour and see the SNP as a better best buy than the LibDems.
The message is designed to take advantage of those who believe they are voting for a delegate to a presidential election by mandated proxy.
The SNP can’t be the next government so choose between President Brown and President Cameron.
Could that have been subliminally inspired by “AS for FM” which damaged at least one of the minor parties more than enough to account for the SNP majority in 2007?
So DC for PM.
I don’t think it is good enough to have much effect when we know that Labour are losing but there is no enthusiasm for the Conservatives either.
Labour are on the same track, saying that only a vote for them can help prevent a Conservative government. That is obviously not true where Labour are in third place and Conservatives in second and the opposite is in fact nearer the truth in much of Scotland: a vote for Labour is a “wasted” vote and conversely there are constituencies where a Conservative swing from LibDem or SNP could result in a gain for Labour.
I’m sure if I tried I could think up a more effective strategy for either party.
Keith
“So – they’re right to look for odd extra seats in case they need them, but there’s probably better places to go find them (and better ways to go about it).”
There’s an idea for OLDNAT.
The Conservatives are said to be pouring money into marginals. How many of the eleven seats will be receiving extra funds?
If they are not wasting it on Scotland you could point this out to Scottish voters. If Scottish campaigns are well funded you could challenge them on whether they will be as generous with the taxpayers money to bribe Scottish voters when in government and UKIP would make the most of that.
I’d guess the Scottish party is on its own financially and deemed to benefit from central initiatives.
John B Dick
Nah! I’m just a recently rejoined member – happy to leave the strategy to St Nicola and her acolyte Alex.
@ John B Dick
“The message is designed to take advantage of those who believe they are voting for a delegate to a presidential election by mandated proxy.”
Probably because they are? Oh, there are other reasons, but the main reason is their differential opinion of the parties offered. Look at the polls for issues that concern people when asked the open question; they’re mostly national. I’m not sure why you’ve chosen the word “president” throughout your post, though.
“There are some on the centre-right…”
Here’s the Tory party trying to grab their attention. They’re in a Catch-22 situation: if there aren’t many Scottish Tory MPs, it’s easy to shout that the Tories don’t care about Scotland, so they don’t get many Scottish MPs next time… Etc. Naturally, unfavourable seat distribution is a problem here.
“…there are constituencies where a Conservative swing from LibDem or SNP could result in a gain for Labour. ”
And what of it? They’re all socialist parties.
And if they beat the LibDems to 4th place in vote count but not seat count, I should think Cameron couldn’t think of better grist to the “seat distribution reform” agenda.
Richard Manns
Well I was “agreeable”
“They’re all socialist parties.” Do you actually know what “socialist” means?
There are a number of socialist parties in Scotland – even Labour doesn’t count as one of these though.
Richard Manns
For each Labour vote to elect an MP in 2005 it took over three SNP and nine Con votes but I don’t remember the how many LibDemsr.
That’s why AS’s 20 seats won’t happen. It is as narrow a target to hit as a hung parliament. Just a little nudge beyond 20 and the FPTP jackpot flips and the SNP gets 30+ instead of Labour. I reckon the SNP will get near enough this time for a less than 5% swing from Labour to give them a majority of Scottish seats in 2012 or 2013 if there is a hung parliament and an early election.
Thanks for the link to the article. The headline is obviously ‘economical with the truth’ but the comments are priceless.
In addition to the underpants joke, mentioned above, there are some LOL witticisms. Here’s another example:
“Scots Tories set to gain new seats”
Aye right! Where? Must be at the DFS sale.
And in response to a serious comment about Trident:
“I’m not expecting North Korea to invade Scotland any time soon.”
Almost as funny as the Conservatives’ interpretation of the poll.
Reading posts to The Scotsman this survey has been met with a great deal of scepticism and amusement.The consensus seems to be that the Tories will do well to retain their single seat in Scotland. I really don’t understand why private polls are included in any serious analysis.
@ OldNat
I’m taking “socialist” to mean “self-describing as left-of-centre or left”.
What I meant to illustrate is that it doesn’t matter which of Labour, LD and the SNP the MP is, they’ll still vote against just about every Tory policy of note if the Tories win. Don’t you agree?
@ John B Dick
“That’s why AS’s 20 seats won’t happen.”
I agree, and I’d be astounded if the Tories took anything more than 5 seats. I’d be impressed if they took more than 3 in Scotland. But it would be a start; I didn’t see the SNP giving up after 1979’s painful losses.
Without giving us the responses to an intention to vote question plus the full tables, this poll and its report are worthless spin . Do they indicate how a Cameron-led administration would spin government stats too? Is anybody monitoring and publishing ALL the parties’ statistical spinning tricks in the run-up to the GE?
And is any of the polling orgs monitoring the extent to which the voting intentions of the electorates in Scotland and Wales are influenced by the small number of UK-wide issues that actually apply to them – defence, security, foreign affairs, UK-level EU policy, international development, overall economic management and the future powers of devolved governments – rather than the full political agenda applying to England on which the UK-wide parties and media are likley to concentrate? The latter obviously includes the economy and UK taxation, but also the really big-ticket domestic issues that Westminster decides for England alone.
“Actually, it would be pretty much impossible for Cameron to rechart Brown or Blair.
Blair and Brown both started their premierships without a massive recession around them.
Cameron can’t borrow like Brown did. Our credit rating won’t stand it.
”
————————————————————————-
I think the point being, if you stay in power long enough, you will eventually make enough mistakes to be considered a failure.
Thatcher, Blair are about as good as it gets. As they won good majorities, and were able to create as many successes as they did errors.
Within 10 years we will almost certainly be lambasting the tories, and voting Labour back in on a huge majority
If you are only going in with a 20 majority, with the tories volatalie back benches, you aren’t making a good start.
That was Majors problem. You need a majority of at least 50 to control the tory party.
Labout MPs follow the whip a bit more in general.
Quick question on the same subject actually.
Anyone actually think even a 25 majority will be enough for the tories ?
Major had a 27 majority, and that wasn’t nowhere near enough to keep authority over the back benches.
I’d suggest that Cameron is more devisive than Major, on most subjects.
How long could the whips keep these back bench MPs voting along the party line? When you’d only need 28 to lose a vote.
Tories downfall has always been their inability to unite. And the volatility of the back benches.
Winning say a 20 majority could well be a tad counterproductive. As 5 years of that would almost certainly leave Labour in a great position for a big counter attack, with a new leader.
I’d say Cameron will want at least 50
“Labout MPs follow the whip a bit more in general.”
This isn’t true – look at Phil Cowley’s work on Parliamentary rebellions. The 2005 Parliament has already seen more revolts against the whip by members of the governing party than any other post-war parliament, as a percentage of rebellions is set to surpass the 2001-2005 Parliament, which is currently the most rebellious post-war Parliament.
(And since your second post came in while i was writing this, remember with a majority of 28 it would only take 14 rebels voting against (assuming, of course, that all the Ulster MPs turned up and voted against, which isn’t actually very likely – and in some cases is damn certain not to happen).
@ Chris
“I’d say Cameron will want at least 50″
Thatcher started with a majority of 43.
I think Major’s problem was pretty specific, in that he was trying to balance a cautiously enthusiatic European policy, which was sacred to some of his Big Guns (Clarke being the Biggest) against the implacable opposition of a couple of dozen hardcore Eurosceptics. Cameron would not be in the same position as Tory Europe policy is more settled now. The Europhiles are far less prominent and some of the audience the Eurosceptics were playing to is now in UKIP and not within the Tory rank-and-file to back them up.
I imagine Labour ministers (and probably Blair and Brown) have called their colleagues words at least as bad as “bas***ds” but they just haven’t been caught out saying it!
Neil A
Will the character of the Tory PP change after the next GE?
I haven’t been keeping an eye on what has been happening with Tory MPs standing down, but I got the impression that Cameron was levering out many of his potential opponents among back benchers. Has anydone any analysis of this?
anydone = anyone done
Oldnat – I pondered that. This is a list of the 20 most rebellious Conservative MPs from 2005-2008 (it was the most recent list Phil Cowley had to hand when I accosted him for it):
Ken Clarke (neutered by office)
Bob Spink (defected)
Philip Davies
Christopher Chope
Philip Hollobone
Richard Shepherd
Ann Widdecombe (retiring)
Peter Bone
Peter Lilley
Bill Cash
Nigel Evans
Ann Winterton (retiring)
Nick Winterton (retiring)
John Gummer (retiring)
Douglas Hogg (retiring)
Andrew Tyrie
David Wilshire (retiring)
Brian Binley
Peter Bottomley
Charles Walker
8 of them have effectively been got rid of, either by retirement, defection or in the case of Ken Clarke, high office.
Wolf Macneill
You have identified a serious problem for the parties of Westminster government. The short answer is that judging by past experience (from EIIR onwards) is that they will mess it up, look foolish so delivering more votes to the SNP and further discrediting politicians in general.
The strength of the LibDems in Scotland is such that they have perhaps more control than the others over their own campign. Structurally the Conservatives have more independence in the SP, but financial considerations could determine their reliance on centrally managed initiatives.
Labour appears to be the most unthinkingly London-dependant. A significant part of the electorate thinks that the SNP are irrelevant for Westminster, and a unremittingly negative campaign from Labour attacking independence and almost everything related to it will be a turnoff. Independence is a matter for the referendum and not the election as everyone knows. Anti-independence attack is obviously a local specialty. Labour activists do it for fun. Anyone with the slightest sales or marketing training knows that will cost them votes.
The attack on the SNP does not include making any positive case for Trident if that can be avoided and data used to support the case for Nuclear power is selectively UK.
Individual candidates will have their constituency issues in some election material, but there is a danger that they will also be distributing irrelevant texts if there is any detail on devolved issues.
There are implications for MP’s between elections. When my constituency had a LibDem MP and MSP a single publicity newsletter could address devolved and reserved issues and both politicians often appeared on local photo opportunities together as if the the were a duo doing the same job.
Now that they have lost the SP seat, the fact that the MP offers his opinion on matters which are not his responsibility such as roads, schools and hospitals is more noticeable. Not that there is any reason why he should not visit hospitals in his constituency, since he votes on NHS issues relating to English hospitals, and the comparative information (as well as that which is common) which he can gather, would inform his thinking. It would be odd if he made trips to hospitals in England though English Conservative MP’s have done the converse.
The three Westminster parties need Bavarianisation and one or two distinct, contrasting and practical policies which they are proud to defend for reasons relevant to Scotland. That’s one of the things devolution is for.
Both governments appear to be about to act on medical advice on minimum price alcohol. In Scotland, Labour are opposed for no better reason that they oppose everything the SNP government does.
If there were some better reason why they should take a different view in Scotland, then they should explan why there is a different policy and defend it, they would get credit for that. Previously, under Jack McConnell, when they were in government and NewLabour was introducing in England market friendly policies that they chose to ignore (without defending the difference in approach) they were challengened by Conservatives for denying the Scottish NHS these supposed benefits.
The Scottish government has pre-emptively banned commercial companies from running GP surgeries probably to avoid compensation issues. Whichever party wins the election, you may soon be able to visit your GP in Tesco’s.
There are therefore several Scottish issues that are likely to be ignored in the campaign, solutions to English problems that are announced and irrelevant campaign material issued. There is nothing new in that though it is more noticeable since devolution, but that is the reason for the demand for devolution in the first place and now the drift to independance.
The party that gave us devolution is the one which has in its internal organisation done least to adapt to the change.
Anthony
Thanks for that list.
@OLDNAT
“Will the character of the Tory PP change after the next GE? ”
If they win it , it’s membership will change dramatically-and given the magnitude of change it seems inevitable that it’s “character” will change.
Anthony gives 58 new candidates in (notionally) Conservative seats.
Electoral Calculus is currently suggesting 338 Conservative MPs ( Con Maj. 26)
So potentially 200 or so of the Con. PP-or 60% could be new.
Blair must have faced something similar in 1997-though the proportion of his then 418 MPs who were
new was a good deal less-maybe 30% or so?
What is the consensus on the difficult area? 20 – 30 – 50? If it needs as much as 30 or more to be manageable, even if not for a full five years and on every issue, then that’s more than I thought and we are very likely going to be in the “difficult” rather than “comfortable” Con majority if not Con-hung range of the possible outcomes.
When every vote counts, the minor parties can have more influence and the LibDems and Nationalists, if they can get their act together, might be able to do some deals if they are ready for it. I can’t see what the SNP would be tempted by that is likely to be on offer.
On the other hand, since nationalists dont vote on devolved matters, divisions on most issues should be comfortable enough.
John B Dick
The only things that might tempt the SNP would be STV for Westminster elections, and control over how the SP is elected..
I think only about 30 Labour MPs stood down in 1997, so of the 419 MPs roughly 240 were re-elected and 180 were new = 43%. If Cameron wins a majority it’ll be a significantly different situation with more than 50% being newly elected.
Why do labour voters always moan about thatcher . She left 20 years ago its like Me saying liverpool is the most dominant team in the world
OldNat
Is it the Stalinist method of control or the Mugabe one you have in mind?
I’m still not convinced by the hung Parliament narrative. It probably suits all the parties to run with it though. Every time I look at GB polls, when I strip out the Scottish respondents, it seems to give a big enough Tory lead in England for an outright win.
However, if it did happen ….
As John B Dick points out, SNP won’t vote on English issues, nor will Paid, and the only Ulster MPs likely to do so would be UUP. It’s difficult to see the Tories as being the largest party without being able to comfortably govern on English domestic matters. Most foreign affairs don’t need legislation, which really only leaves the elephant in the room – the economy.
Experience in the SP suggests that opposition parties are ultimately unwilling to precipitate an election by voting down a Budget, so we might be entering a new more fragmented structure in the UK, that politicians will hate, but many of the public might quite like.
John B Dick
I think it is fascinating. If I may bring this into the thread. We have had numerous announcements from both parties. Where is in the past a statement like a tory black hole of 85 Billion whould have lasted as a headline for at least 48hrs.Today with bloggers,tweeters and face bookers it does not last 48 minutes. I think we are in for a facinating ride, the outcome of which I would not dare call.
Paul B
It’s not just Labour voters that moan about Thatcher, its people who vote for every party and none. The only party to have a majority of the popular vote in any party of the UK is the one that has most reason to regret her influence.
Scottish Conservatives, (though they supported her at the time) recognise that their present sorry state is her legacy and that any hopes of revival must be deferred till after she is dead, buried and forgotten,
John Curtice reckons that of her three enduring achievements is that she persuaded the Scots of the merits of devolution. TB did his bit to keep things going in the same direction (Iraq, Trident, Nuclear Power) and GB is still at it (Post offices). The only way DC can help falling into the same trap is if he is handcuffed to AG every waking hour and takes her advice. That isn’t going to happen.
I’ve said before that if we have a state funeral and hours of cheap BBC library footage with cheap elderly politicians talking in the studio that I will increase my projection of SNP seats by 2, Wouldn’t the BBC make the most of it? Conservative-friendly (supposedly) and public service objectives met at negligible cost. Three birds with one stone. They’ll make a meal of it.
Data tables now up on the ORB site for their Tory target poll. PDF document is dated 31/12/09. No voting intention Qs
Poll says Tories set to do well in Scotland———-and it must be right… ….it was was afterall paid for by the Tories ————-Ho Ho Ho!
The additional information makes this poll seem stranger still. There were no respondents who won’t vote. And many of the questions seemed designed to elicit a particular response.
What a strange poll…can any experts shed some light on the purpose of such polls, please?
David Greybeard
Normally, I don’t care who paid for a poll, because I trust the pollster to be professional.
However, the “Tories set to do well in Scotland” headline is so clearly not supported by the data in the table, that I have my doubts about ORB, for tha reason alone.
They moan about Thatcher because there living in the past and have nothing better to say about Broon and his Scottish socialists or is that communists.
Craig
Are you part of an invasion of the trolls?
AmberStar
I’m no expert, but the purpose of such a poll might be thought to be obvious. To suggest why might be considered partisan though!
Thanks, Old Nat.
I made a point about women ‘don’t knows’ the other day. Anthony Wells replied they are always higher than men re politics questions.
I wondered if I was showing my ignorance again by assuming this poll was purely to get some news coverage.
Interestingly, the PDF for this targetted seats poll looks totally different from other ORB data tables.
No ORB logo, amateurish layout and typeface. Maybe none of the professionals at ORB wanted to be associated with it?
Old Nat,
Re invasion of the trolls: I go on Cif (Guardian) & it is getting really bad. The trolls don’t even debate the subject anymore; and some of the personal attacks on other bloggers are really spiteful.
I hope it doesn’t become unmanageable on this site. I really like learning about the polling; some speculation makes it interesting but troll stuff is tedious.
Old Nat
Re Orb – I don’t know their usual standard but something that struck me as odd, they say they called people in marginals but nothing about how those people were selected.
Is that usual? Do polls normally say ’selected at random’ or such-like?
Also 100% of responds said they are likely to vote & >60% said they will definitely vote. That’s unusual, even in marginal seats, yes?
AmberStar
I didn’t spot anything on methodology either, which I find unusual.
I’d like to hear from Anthony on these points, but he sometimes seems a little reluctant to criticise (as opposed to comment on) other firms methodologies – which is understandable.
Re trolls – Anthony is ruthless about such people!
Are trolls the pro or anti Thatcherite lobby or both?
Davey
Both. This isn’t the site for people who just want to come on and post stupid offensive partisan comments. When i want to make stupid offensive partisan comments I go elsewhere!
The ORB poll is a disgrace.
One question asks whether people would prefer a “strong” Government to a hung Parliament. Another asks whether the NATS should “concentrate” on the Scottiosh Parliament!
Little wonder they didn’t ask a voting question which is difficult to fiddle!
Amberstar/Oldnat – I don’t think I’d telling anyone off for partisanship for stating the bleeding bloody obvious! Apart from internal polls that are genuinely leaked (and yes, it does happen) polls commissioned by political parties for publication are indeed intended to get positive news coverage.
Some pollsters put detailed methodology at the start of their tables like ICM do, but sadly the majority don’t and you need to go looking for details. ORB are a phone pollster, so the sample will be selected using Random Digit Dialing (in practice that is done by randomly selecting a phone number from the BT phone directory, then switching the last number randomly so you also include ex-directory people).
The lack of non-voters though is very strange indeed – you always get some people who will definitely not vote, and normally get several putting themselves at 5 on the scale too. It suggests to me that this is actually a poll of “likely voters” – the sort of thing that you more usually see in the USA. UK pollsters normally only filter voting intention questions for likely voters, and include all voters in other questions.
(And Oldnat – Richard Hooper their Associate Director has put his name to it, so I think that comment is rather unfair.)
Anthony
If my comment was unfair, then I withdraw it.
Still doesn’t explain why he put his name to a conclusion that isn’t supported by the data though.
That does imply a degree of partisanship though, for either commercial or political reasons. The implication may not be borne out by reality, but it seems an unwise position to get into.
As to the political effect of the poll, it seems to have backfired. It has generally either been ignored or derided.
And as further evidence that a badly constructed poll is counter productive, this from the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/blogs/parcel-of-rogues/ridiculous-findings-1.996091
Re Trolling:
Anthony & Craig, I meant stuff like “Gordon Brown is the new Hitler” which had to be pulled off another board. I didn’t specifically mean Craig’s comment.
I totally apologise if I caused any offence, it was unintended.
Anthony,
I appreciate your explanation of Random Digit Dialing. That’s really interesting to a novice like me.
Also interesting that Orb may have adopted a US polling option by only including likely voters.
Thank you
AMBERSTAR
please forgive my ignorance but what is the talk of Trolls? what are you referring to?
I am a bit of a ‘newbie’ so don’t understand. Please help.
“Troll” is an internet term for someone who goes onto blogs, forums etc and makes deliberately inflammatory comments designed to provoke angry responses from the regular commentators. A Cyber-Stirrer if you like.
The point being you can’t really win an argument with a Troll. Well you can, but they don’t care. Getting you riled was the point, not getting the better of you with reasoned debate.
I think Oldnat’s link to the Herald article diplays a lot of what we should think about this poll. I’m struck by why the Tories did this. They have a sound and long term poll lead and are up against a highly unpopular PM. Why do they keep making basic and unecessary errors?
Yesterday’s campaigning was pretty unedifying stuff all round and shows the way the next five months are likely to look. Without wanting to open up the rights and wrongs of any parties claims, I suspect Labour have score something of a minor hit. There’s no doubt that Cameron has appeared to promise many things, but always with caveats. The more he appears slippery on specifics (yesterday it was the married couiples tax break) the nmore this could potentially play into fears over his sincerity. Brown doesn’t have quite so much of a problem on this score as people already think he is dishonest anyway and he isn’t claiming to be telling the truth quite so vigourously.
I don’t think the poll results tell us much about the election, but what they do tell us about is the possible election campaign that the Tories will mount in them.
The questions asked are loaded but they are there to test how possible campaign lines will work. thus;
“So you think Scotland would be better serves with more than one tory MP, then why not make it happen right here….”
” We don’t want a hung parliament and a weak Government, so vote Tory to prevent it as only we can deliver.”
” Labour and Brown are old and tired its time for a change and only David cameron can do that.”
” If you think the SNP should stick to Holyrood then give us your Westminster vote”.
These ten seats represent where the bulk of the Tory resources will be allocated and the poll shows the type of campaign the tories will mount there.
I’d like to know what the ten seats are and as an SNP member I am delighted to know what kind of tory campaign we will face in the ones where they are challenging or competing with us…
Peter.
Peter
As far as I remember, there are the Tory targets
Angus
Argyll and Bute
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh South
Edinburgh South West
Perth and North Perthshire
Stirling
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
NEIL A
Thanks for that. I did wonder…
Peter
“as an SNP member I am delighted to know what kind of tory campaign we will face in the ones where they are challenging or competing with us…”
Strange campaigning approach from the Tories! I noted that the Scottish Conservative website didn’t carry these polls. I wonder if they were leaked/given mistakenly to the Press to precipitate the publication of the data tables?
Off the topic of Scottish polls, does anyone else out there feel that the Tory ‘campaign launch’ this week has been a bit odd? The tone seems strange – total focus on Cameron like some cult of personality, with a defensive poster about not cutting the NHS and a string of health policy announcements that are already government policy. Add to that the announcement of two new quangos in 48 hours and a cock up over taxation for married couples and I’m left stratching my head wondering what a party meant to stuffed full of ultra intelligent chaps are doing.
I’m becoming increasingly convinced that despite their massive resources, the Tories aren’t very good at politics. My feeling is that if they weren’t up against a discredited third term outfit with a leader no one likes they would be under severe pressure. I don’t want to make predictions, but the latest economic figures are much better than the pre Christmas figures and suggests that while there was something of a pause in October/November the pace is picking up strongly again. I have a growing suspicion that unless the Tories start to get serious and perform like a government in waiting they will see a continuing erosion of their poll lead and face a nervous few months.
Alec
I agree with you about the Tories not being much good at politics (or rather electioneering). However, I think it also applies to the other parties, and unfortunately the party I have supported most. The Libs/LD have been knocking on the door for 40 years. It remind me of the words of the song ‘you’re knocking but you can’t come in’.
I disagree with you about the NHS. I think the Tory approach is to neutralise the attacks of past elections, such as we have 24 hours to save the NHS in 97.
Also, the Tories are likely to enmphasise their greatest asset, which in their view is David C, echoing the acceptable face of Labour (Tony Blair) in 1997.
@Davey – I understand the thinking, but in my view, putting ‘cuts’ and ‘NHS’ on the same poster is subliminally reminding voters of the connection. Labour insiders are claiming to love this. In terms of Cameron as an asset – the most recent national poll shows his support dropping sharply to 35% I seem to recall, while this odd Scottish poll show him leading Brown by only 54/46 in a few Tory target seats. Pining everything on Cameron is a risk, and one that isn’t worth taking. Labour have now cottoned on to the fact that their best chance is to highlight everything Cameron says and cost it (however false the sums are) and try to force admissions of where the money will come from and whether its a promise or an aspiration. The backdrop will continue to be that he says whatever people want to hear, and for an opposition claiming the mantle of truth and honesty that is going to cause them problems. Since the conferences the Tories have lost their nimble footedness – they need to get it back fast if they want to protect their lead.
@Paul b
Why do labour voters always moan about thatcher . She left 20 years ago its like Me saying liverpool is the most dominant team in the world
—————————————
If I may digress a moment and answer this:
The reason why Thatcher crops up is apolitical.
With Margaret Thatcher – and her period in government – there came a sea change in British politics.
Broadly speaking, for better or worse, the general tenor of British politics moved from prioritising Full-Employment and Direct Taxation to prioritising Low Inflation and Indirect Taxation. (There were other issues as well).
And since her time in office, the ‘game’ has stayed set that way.
Many Labour supporters (and people on the left in general) would rather the ‘game’ moved back to what it was before. Whilst many Conservtives (and people on the right in general) are happy that the ‘game’ is set the way it now is.
Hope that helps!
ALEC
“Why do they keep making basic and unecessary errors?”
That’s a very interesting question. Clearly, among their strengths is not that they are good at learning from experience, including other peoples experience. That is because these things are done by bright and energetic but over-enthusiastic young supporters with no experience or memory of recent political history far less longer term and international perspectives. They could learn a lot from these pages, but they won’t. It’s not just that they do not have much experience of life outside the metropolitain politcs/journalism/media/celebrity network, but that most of the people they interact with are other members of that tribe.
Most of us are of average ability, two standard deviations in fact. Those that are significantly different are no more numerous than those who need help with the challenge of daily living. If you have had a good education and an important job you, it is easy to get the impression that you are smarter and less ignorant than you actually are.
They need to get out a bit more.
If you happen to be a wildlife crime detective in the far North West, or a mother of three primary school kids in a run down area of Glasgow, or a world class academic in Edinburgh, you have other concerns, interests and values.
Scottish Labour are worse.
Their sole approach is to attack their main opponents, (SNP in the SP and Cons in the UKP) rather than to promote their own policies. Nothing their opponents do can ever be right. If their opponents change their policies it is a U-turn and still wrong. The adopt the language used by the press which has migrated from the sports pages and is uniformly in terms of conflict and dominance, winners and losers.
Many years ago there was a series of books “Teach yourself to be a …. [DIY brain surgeon (or whatever)]“. The one for salesman advised you not to directly criticise a competitor’s product. If that advice wasn’t in Chapter 1 it was certainly in Chapter 2. It’s that basic.
The Scottish Labour party must have dozens of members with formal sales or marketing training, yet it persists in this basic error, at every opportunity and to a risible degree.
I conclude that being elected and in government demonstrating how their policies can improve the quality of life of people in Scotland is not Scottish Labour’s primary aim, whatever they may think. Instead they self-indulgently prioritise trolling and point scoring in parliament over winning over the unimpressed electorate.
Donald Dewar knew that negativity was a crass error and he was sidelined at every election while Helen Liddle or some other attack dog was brought in to do what she was told to do. His standing in the party suffered as a result.
Peter an OldNat have good reason to take comfort from what they have deduced from this poll about their opponents methods, but the Conservatives are not their main opponents. The criticisms of Scottish Labour’s policies by its sternest critics seems like damning it with faint praise compared with what can be said of it as a campaigning organisation.
That is why the SNP need only avoid mistakes and scandal. They had best not attempt anything too radical or innovative. Elections are lost, not won, and the SNP are indeed fortunate in their opponents. What more could they want?
JOHN B DICK
“Their sole approach is to attack their main opponents, rather than to promote their own policies. Nothing their opponents do can ever be right.”
These are not just the marks of “Scottish ” Labour :-
” “Nothing that the Conservatives say adds up, and that’s what the election is going to be about,”
Gordon Brown
5/1/10
It will be fascinating to see how the Polls react to this sort of thing.
The widespread cynicism about politicians is not going to be helped by starting an”election campaign” whilst failing to call an election.
Five months of these empty vaccuous and evasive utterances ( or “four months” as Timms intriguingly said on DP this morning) and people will be brain dead.
@ALEC
Your concern for the well being of the Tory lead in the polls is heart warming. As for their lack of political skill, I would say with GB pushing Lord M of F in to the shadows, there is no skill whatever in the Labour team. Where GB ever obtained his reputation as an astute political player I shall never understand.
Lets face it, Brown should be 12 months into Labours 4th term
with an 80 seat majority. Argy Bargy about turquoise being green or blue for the next 5 months, will not expunge the memory of the last 12 years.
Alec
“The tone seems strange – total focus on Cameron like some cult of personality.”
This is also the result of looking inward.
Political parties are authoritarian organisations which Bob Altemeyer has researched. His reference is to conservative religious rightwingers in the American South but it explains the ease with which the change from Socialism to New Labour was made.
It makes depressing reading because it shows how, potentially, a charismatic leader can build support.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
From inside a party, it seems that you pick a leader and he (and it usually is a he) takes all the rest of the decisions. Promoting a change of policy (unless the leader has authorised it), is deviant behaviour and disloyalty. Unlike the Inca leaders, if he fails to make rain or win battles, the leader is ritually replaced rather than ritually killed. Football managers are in the same situation, Otherwise the leader can change principles and direction (Clause 4, CND) not by the force of argument, but by force of personality. TB was good at it and it was said towards the end that he saw in any fresh proposal which was unpopular with the party an opportunity to do what he excelled at.
That is what happens with “strong government” which the poll suggests is an unmixed blessing, and “strong government” needs a strong leader. People said of Mussolini ” … at least he made the trains run on time.” Hitler was democratically elected.
Most people outwith political parties do not accept their credo, and so long as there are several parties, there are choices. “Vote for Dave” is not enough. From within the party it looks fine.
You are of course right to say that the Tories are not very good at politics, though neither are Labour of course, and that’s because they are not “ultra intelligent chaps” at all and they can’t possibly be. (See my previous answer and the back of the old 10DM note.)
To accept them at their self estimation of their talents is to make the mistake New Labour made about the bankers.
Personally, I think that apeing Blair is a big mistake. Certainly he was successful for a time, but what worries me most about DC is that the heir to Blair may also place presentation before policy or pragmatism, and his professional background does not engender confidence that it won’t.
Focus on a leader’s talent contest will appeal to those who vote on TV programmes, but what you need to manage a recession and two wars is not the same as you need to win Pop Idol, nor is it a “strong leader”.
We need a few “ultra intelligent chaps” in the background but is the house of commons where you would go first if you were looking for some?
@Roland Haines – I wasn’t specifically looking to contrast Tory and Labour campaigning – Brown hasn’t covered himself in glory by any means. What I was thinking about was much more about the risks to Cameron. He’s played the honesty and change cards very strongly, ‘we can’t go on like this’ etc, so if he gets tripped up by appearing evasive or dodgy it’s a potentially big hit at the heart of his image. As the Tory campaign is totally about him, any loss of trust is potentially catastrophic. Brown by contrast is so damaged such matters won’t affect him. I might be wrong, but I sense people are getting a little tired of Cameron. I also think John B Dick might have a point – sometimes they seem far too clever by half and don’t seem to understand what people are looking for.
@Colin – I quite agree with your general thoughts. “It will be fascinating to see how the Polls react to this sort of thing.” That particular message about Tory plans not adding up could well be quite a potent one for Labour. This is where I feel Cameron’s austerity message was a mistake – now, every time he says what he wants to do labour will stick on a few more billions and say it doesn’t add up. Meanwhile Brown, who comprehensively ignored logic and claimed (still claims) rising spending, doesn’t have such a problem (although he has other issues with this approach). If there are signs of economic recovery it makes Brown’s message of growth easier to sell than Cameron’s.
@ John B Dick
“People said of Mussolini ” … at least he made the trains run on time.””
People may have said it, but it isn’t true. He made one train run on time; his own. (Or at least that’s what QI claimed!)
Richard Manns and John B Dick
You’re both right, of course.
Authoritarian leaders need to claim to be efficient and effective, since they are presenting themselves as Glorious Leaders. Mussolini lied through his teeth about the railways (the improvements largely predated the March on Rome. Hitler never managed to get the German economy onto a full war footing.
This isn’t TOTALLY off topic, but there are implications for the strong managerialist leader concept that the Scottish Tories were suggesting to voters in their poll.
Gordon Brown says that a government which has lost its majority has no mandate to govern:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7enLKrxLrI
Maybe John Lennon had the explanation. He said:
“We can have figureheads, and we can have people that we admire and like to have standing up and all that. We can have examples… But leaders is what we don’t need.”
He thought that people were looking for father figures.
It can’t just be the Jewish/Christian influence either, rather the other way round I would have thought.
@ ALEC
“This is where I feel Cameron’s austerity message was a mistake ”
Well this will be at the heart of it.
Brown is clearly going for broke- a painfree “decade of prosperity”-borrowing reduced by the simple expedient of economic growth -no pain/all gain …and yet we know-thanks to IFS-that the PBR implies double digit reductions in Departmental Spend.
It’s just that Brown pretends they don’t exist by constantly refering to a Public Spend which includes Debt servicing & excludes Capital Spending (reductions)(!)
Darling just says we can’t do the departmental allocation yet because we don’t know how the recovery will look.
It’s a joke
Will the public buy it?-do they even understand it ?who knows!
Cameron/Osborne talk tough, but they will have as little credibility with independent financial observers until they say how they will apply the pain.
At the moment they are trading on credibility & trust only,
I’m not sure there is much of either available for any political party in UK.
Who will blink first-or is the red ink so horrendous that no one dares spell it out.
This is an insult of an election campaign until someone does.
@John B Dick: “The one for salesman advised you not to directly criticise a competitor’s product”
I never ever refer to competitors in advertising and, when confronted by a customer about a price being lower elsewhere, generally express total surprise that competing shops exist, let alone sell the same products.
This used to be fairly standard, but the last 20 years retailers seem to have done a complete volte face. The corresponding trend in politics seems to be wholly negative campaigning.
The new tory “cuts” poster seems to me to be a double negative; mathematically a positive but very confusing and very easily misread. I certainly did a double take when I saw it.
While I do not like to see negative campaigning, nor personal attacks, I accept this will be the way the campaign goes. I think the attack on both the two leaders is generally unfair, untrue and a little spiteful.
I would like to see my preferred party take a purely positive stance, but they won’t. If they did I wonder whether it would help them electorally.
In terms of electioneering I would say Labour has done all the running over the past three months. The Tories have seemed rather restrained.
However, are they keeping their powder dry? There is a long time to go and as a rather astute PM once said ‘A week is a long time in politics’.
I am probably at odds with the majority of contributors as I believe the Tory adverts on the NHS will be effective. The NHS is much loved, and in the past it has been suggested that the Tories would like to scrap it, and it has been a potent electoral weapon against them. I think DC has neutralised this threat, and Labour will concentrate on other perceived vulnerable areas.
@Colin – I wholeheartedly agree with your last post. My gut feeling however is that, on balance, people will accept Brown’s message more than Cameron’s. I say this not because I think they should, or because I think it’s sensible, but merely that people tend to respond to a positive message more than a negative. If there is some better economic news forthcoming, which I think there will be, this will give more weight to arguments of growth against austerity, however falacious they may be. We also come back to a point Anthony has made several times – if it’s cuts we’re talking about, people may trust the Tories less than Labour. For tax rises it’s the reverse, but Cameron opted to go with cuts as his preferred means to close the budget gap and helped hand some ammunition to Brown.
I would also agree with Shopkeeperman about the Tory poster. They’ve spent a fortune on this, and I feel it’s simply not very good. Repeatedly saying how much you’re not going to do something simply reminds the electorate that they think you think that they are going to do what they say they won’t do, if you get what I mean.
I don’t know what, if any, impact this will have on the polls. I did predict a few months ago that the poll gap would narrow, and according to some pollsters it has. The feeling in my bones at the moment is that there will be a further narrowing, but I could be wrong.
Much mention has been made of the Tories huge war-chest – demonstrated by their commissioning these two polls in Scotland to test their chat-up lines.
Here at least, that may not be so much of an issue. The Electoral Commission has now published expenses for the Euros
Each Labour vote cost 99p , Cons cost 84p each, LD 83p each, SNP 39p each.
@ ALEC
“if it’s cuts we’re talking about, people may trust the Tories less than Labour. For tax rises it’s the reverse,”
In the last YouGov Poll, the answers to :-
“How much do you trust the…. to take the
right decisions about taxes and public spending?:
Were :-
Cons Total Trust 40%
Total Do not Trust 51%
Net DNT 11%
Labour Total Trust 30%
Total Do Not Trust 64%
Net DNT 34%
I would score that a win for Cons on this topic-but it is not a vote of confidence!
The poster is based on simple electoral/polling principles I think. You have an electorate that wants to see the deficit cut, but that regards the NHS as sacrosanct. You have an electorate that doesn’t much like the Tories, but is keen on David Cameron.
Confronted with those sorts of parameters, its pretty easy to see why the Tories went down this road. All that remained was to pick out the most appropriate mugshot of Dave and finetune the exact wording.
All pretty paint-by-numbers, but as far as quality goes, its more X Factor than the South Bank Show. But we know that electorate goes for the simple over the nuanced every time.
After all. The Tories won an election with the Double Whammy posters, which were pretty rubbish aesthetically.
I note the total for this poll is 1010. except for the forced question between Brown and Cameron, where it is only 830. Presumably the rest refused?
‘Much mention has been made of the Tories huge war-chest – demonstrated by their commissioning these two polls in Scotland to test their chat-up lines.
Here at least, that may not be so much of an issue. The Electoral Commission has now published expenses for the Euros
Each Labour vote cost 99p , Cons cost 84p each, LD 83p each, SNP 39p each.’
but that assumes that people care equally about UK votes and the EU (or devolved parliament); a very questionable assumption.
Jack
I wasn’t making that assumption at all. Simply pointing out that having the largest budget does not necessarily imply that it will gain more votes. That might happen for a variety of reason – including wasting money on activities that are actually counter-productive.
I really do hope we get another poll soon as I think we have wrung as much mileage as we can from this one.
Broadly speaking, I think we can conclude that the Scots will continue to return large numbers of Labour MPs to the Westminster parliament, that the Tories could do staggeringly well in Scotland and double their representation to two, and the Liberal Democrats and SNP will perform slightly better but not amazingly so.
Although I love the polls and the excitement that they generate am I the only one whose heart has sunk at the possibility of a five month election campaign?? It is only day two and I am really really bored at the claim and counter claim. I am so fed up with the thinly veiled spin from all of them. Can’t we do to the political system what the public did to the Christmas number one??? Let’s just imagine that all the major parties are X factor finalists expecting to be shoe ins for Number 10 (rather than number one) and that we need a Rage Against the Machine party. UKIP are just about barking enough to fit the bill but I really think we should have a new alliance headed by Esther and Joanna Lumley. The party logo could be a funny shaped vegetable whilst the canvassers could be ghurkas (Would you say no to one on YOUR doorstep???)
I would love to know of any possible additional recruits to such an alliance…….
Hardpressedtqy
I might even move south and support it!
Agreed about how bad this is all going to be.
I’ll make a final point about these polls, though. With no other polls around, these have been generally derided over a much longer period than normal, where they’ve been discussed in Scotland – making it an even bigger own goal!
Anthony
I saw a rumour about a Harris poll for Metro – any idea about that?
Christian Schmidt – nope, the table for that question excludes don’t knows.
Oldnat – haven’t seen anything about it, where did you see it. Harris have done strange polls for the Metro that only sampled people between 18-65 in certain demographics (its called their urban panel or something), but have also done proper nat rep polls for them too, so it might be kosher.
Anthony
Probably a dubious source (certainly distasteful!). A poster on political betting had come across a statement from a BNP spokesperson that they had been asked by the Metro to comment on it.
Apologies if this has been mentioned above already, but more people (12) in the poll think the SNP is best placed to win the UK (!) general election than think the Lib Dems will win it (10).
Not promising for the Lib Dems, really.
Steven F
Oldnat – yep, just found it.
Another possible explanation other than Harris is that it wasn’t something Metro had commissioned themselves, but that ICM polling for the EHRC that was leaked a couple of months back and should finally be published in the next few weeks.
Anthony
Thanks for that.
I’m in southern England and I’d sooner vote SNP than LibDem. Makes sense to me.
Any chance of Scottish expats running down South as a sort of Monster Raving Loony gimmick??
Anthony,
I have to take issue with one thing about this poll. It asks which party the respondents think is MOST LIKELY to win the next election. It does not give an option of a hung parliament. I personally think it will be hung, but in this poll, my only options would have been “don’t know” or a party, and so naturally given the state of the opinion polls I’d reply Conservative. I would not want someone extrapolating that into an “expectation” of a Tory victory. So I’d have to take issue with that particular interpretation. Personally I find it interesting that only 51% of Scottish women are happy to say that the Tories are the most likely to win.
That’s Scottish women in Tory target seats, of course…
Oldnat may be able to confirm, but I recall reading that the SNP did consider running a candidate in Corby* in the 1960s. They decided not to because under the rules then it would have reduced their allocation of PPBs (they’d have been counted as a party contesting 70-odd seats out of all of those in GB, rather than a party contesting all the seats in Scotland).
(*Corby had vast migration from Scotland in the 50s to work in the steel industry there, and in the 2001 census 18% of people in Corby were still born in Scotland)
Ah Corby. The big supermarket chain I used to work for always ranged Corby as if it were Scottish.
Three times as much canned soup as a normal English store, plus extra Tennants.
Has a range of polls ever been conducted in England regarding Scottish independence? Would make for interesting trends.
The Tories are always going to struggle in Scotland considering they are faced with three wings of the old Labour party ; Nu Labour, the SNP, and the remains of the SDP dressed up as the Lib Dems.
Anthony,
“18% of people in Corby were still born in Scotland”…. What you mean they are dead…
Peter.
Kaybraes
Divide and rule should make it easy. It’s the Thatcher Legacy and FPTP that does it.
As I remember it in 2005 it took nine times as many votes to elect a Conservative and more than three times as many an SNP MP as a Labour MP.
A consequence of Labour being concentrated in Glasgow, and Cons being very thinly spread and in the South West is that North of the central belt is a LibDem v SNP two party system. This is an area which is different from the rest of the UK (including the rest of Scotland) in its population density, topography, climate, industry, communications, coastline, fauna, culture and history. Its needs are neither understood by nor addressed by the two big parties.
Hardpressedtqy has got it about right. There won’t be much change here, but the significance of this election will be that the SNP wil be in the position where although they “lose” by increasing their seats by two thirds and gaining more votes than any other parrty, they will then have a large number of marginals and with less than 5% further swing will flip the FPTP jackpot and gain a majority of the Scottish seats.
That would be hugely significant.
Peter – Bah! You know what I mean. Even 40 odd years after the big rush of Scottish migration there, almost a fifth of the population is still made up of people born in Scotland.
(Bloody cheeky people picking on my tortured syntax
)
This is as good a place as any to raise the issue of the likely outcome of the proposal to exclude the SNP’s from the leaders debates. I leave it to OLDNAT and Peter to make the case for the SNP and am fairly sure that the BBC’s legal department will have the right solution under the law whatever that may be, though deals could no doubt be done.
What would be the effect if the SNP completely lost, and the party that is going to get the greatest number of votes in Scotland is not represented?
All of Scotland would be insulted, and they want to see AS involved because he is a skilled debater who would get the better of most if not all of the other party leaders though OLDNAT would agree with me that he isn’t the best debater the SNP have.
Anthony
There have been various suggestions (usually by pockets of activists outwith Scotland – and I’m not sure seriously) over the years.
Peter will correct me if I’m wrong, but there were other grounds of objection – other than the PPB and the waste of money.
It would be wrong, in principle, for the residents of an English constituency to be represented by an MP whose primary loyalty was to Scotland.
In a situation where the majority of Scots voted for Independence – but Westminster refused – it would weaken Scotland’s case in the international arena if the SNP were fighting seats outwith the territory of Scotland.
John B Dick
What I think would unite many non party-partisan Scots would be the failure of the UK to recognise the reality of a different political system here – regardless of who they’ll actually vote for in May(?). There is a reasonable amount of polling evidence that there is volatility in Scotland, and an overlap on potential support between the SNP and the 3 other parties.
Salmond is obviously playing a strategic game here, as no-one (including him) wants to hear him debating English domestic issues.
There is an obvious solution, of course, in themed debates. One (or even 1.5) on English domestic issues, with the others being solely on UK issues – economy, wars etc. from which the SNP, Plaid, and the NI parties should not be excluded in their areas.
As to who should represent each party, clearly that should be a matter for each party. There is a clear basis in UK legislation and both Scots and English constitutional law that parties contest elections, not potential PMs. There is no legal basis for the Fuhrer Prinzip which has invaded the process of politics since Thatcher.
At the end of the day, it’s about power, not fairness. However, the courts tend to favour fairness, and the threat of their use gives power to the SNP case.
If the broadcasters were intransigent, then I can see the Court of Session imposing “reasonable” conditions of fairness on any broadcast being shown in Scotland.
Apparently Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt are trying to organise a secret Labour party leadership ballot.
Hoon Hewit confirm attempt to force vote on Brown. I wonder what impact it will have on public opinion – will labour support falter as the public seems them in disarray and failing to support their PM who the party has previously congratulated as a world saving genius, or will their support pick up?
Does it hing on whether the country is dissatisfied with Brown in particular rather than Labour in general? The party seems to be good as dosowning its leaders and claiming to have no responsibility for their actions – e.g. Blair on Iraq…..Brown on the economy?
Surely this is simply too close to the election? I think there’s only about 12 weeks before the campaign starts if the election is to be on May 6th.
‘JOHN B DICK
This is as good a place as any to raise the issue of the likely outcome of the proposal to exclude the SNP’s from the leaders debates’
Is it a leader’s debate? Or a debate about potential PMs (and one who could make / break a PM to be realistic). In the rest of the world it’s about who could lead a country, not party leaders…
Let’s please not have the argument about whether they should be or not here, but the implications of the SNP going to court are interesting. IIRC, the previous example was the SNP going to court to stop a big interview with Major being broadcast just before Scottish local elections. In that case the courts stopped it being broadcast in Scotland (which also affected parts of Northern England, since the transmitters don’t line up nicely).
I don’t know if that could work these days though because of satellite and cable telly. Any viewer with Sky can get regional TV from anywhere in the country, and I doubt Sky can flick that on and off (after all, it’s the same satellite signal you get wherever you are). Equally there’s a limited about the courts could do to stop Scottish viewers seeing it online.
Tony M -
My expectation is that it will have an extreme negative effect – with two important caveats. Being seen as disunited and more concerned with internal disputes than policy is very damaging to public support, the big 20+point Tory leads this Parliament have often come as a result of Labour infighting.
The caveats are, firstly, if it’s a flash in the pan that fades after a day or two Labour should be fine. It needs to stick around for a bit to cause damage, and I’ve no idea if it will. Sometimes these things turn out to be damp squibs.
Secondly, if Labour actually do get Brown to resign and manage to replace in a relatively orderly fashion, I expect it will be to their huge advantage.
The best thing for Labour is if they replace Brown or, failing that, if everyone shuts up and backs him. What the Conservatives would like is for Brown to remain Labour leader, but with Labour paralysed by infighting and plotting to dump him.
@Anthony Wells
I agree with your view completely. I had an exchange yesterday on the site, my point was exactly this matter of internicine warfare in the midst of an election campaign, is about as bad as it gets. However, with Hoon and Hewitt attacking THE GREAT MAN, it will probably go nowhere.
I think the Conservatives will get what they want on this issue, ie. Anthony’s final sentence. What will almost certainly happen is that quite a lot of ordinary Labour MPs will back this move but no Cabinet ministers will be brave enough to follow suit. That will mean that Brown survives but is further weakened. Just what the Tories hope for.
Oldnat
“Salmond is obviously playing a strategic game here, as no-one (including him) wants to hear him debating English domestic issues.”
“That” as the lawyers say, “is a matter for him”, but he needent be tongue tied because, as FM he can say on many issues What NS said on privatised hospital cleaning “It’s wrong, we’re not doing it.”
As Anthony shows the broadcasters and the lawyers have a very complex problem, so if we have any lawyers on here, I’d like to hear from them. Possibly the broadcasters can do deals that will satisfy all four parties and enable the big Westminster three to keep the English “others” off the TV.
Some of the people involved think that they have what it takes to negotiate settlements in any of the world’s conflicts. If they are right, they should be able to sort this out, shouldn’t they?
For the SNP, the next best thing to winning the legal argument and having AS with the other three party leaders, is to be unfairly excluded. So long as it was perceived that they had not been unreasonably intransigent, it might even be better for the SNP for them to be excluded unfairly.
Anthony:
On the leader replacement issue, I agree entirely with your analysis except that even if GB resigned tomorrow, there isn’t enough time to have the replacement established. Labour candidates need a narrative to explain why despite the fact that last week GB was the man who single handedly saved the world from financial disaster, this week he isn’t fit to lead the Labour party.
It’s a huge gamble and they aren’t in quite such a hopless situation in the polls that they have nothing at all to lose.
Apart from anything else, what will be the effect on party morale, not least on the party in Scotland where GB is not so much disliked and seen as “one of our own”?
Technically the Cabinet could pick a new claimant by acclamation. In practice, that’d only work if it was somebody who promised to resign no more than 18 months after the next election if he won, otherwise the various contenders would never agree on a joint candidate. And I don’t see any likely caretakers, with the possible exception of the distinctly uninspiring straw.
In practice, nobody likes Hoon or Hewitt. Backbenchers are queuing up to denounce them, whilst they’ve only got support from Blairite retreads like Clarke and oddballs like Sheerman and Field.
Even if Jowell had resigned, she’s not prominent enough to have toppled Brown. It’d need to be one of the prominent eight: Balls, Johnson, Straw, Darling, Burnham, Milliband D, Milliband E or Mandelson. None of those will do it, as it would be career suicide.
So Charles Clarke needs to quit plotting, accept that he’s making it even more likely we’ll lose this year and get back to defending his actually pretty marginal constituency.
It’s funny, GB is so unpopular a couple of the party try and oust him, and get so little support he looks relatively loved!
Ultimately, this is just the most Blairite of the old Blair cabinet opening old wounds. This will look bad for Labour, but overwhelmingly is the feeling that the Labour backbenchers just have no appetite for it.
What a peculiar development!
The next poll is going to be even more fascinating than normal! To have a party with public division on policy is bad enough, but a leadership challenge when the Tories have launched theirs on the basis of a “strong leader” – see the Scottish Tory poll details – is insane.
If I may bring us right back on thread …..
Peter / OldNat..I think that this poll is , as you note, instructive not in what it tells us about Scottish opinion but in what it tells us about Scottish Tory strategy for the campaign. However, I think you may be misreading the purpose.
While it is widely accepted that Cons have a sizeable war chest to spend on the national campaign, it is not evident that the Party in Scotland is awash with cash – still less the manpower and on-the-ground resources to use that effectively. The difficulty Cons face is that in a tight contest, campaign expenditure would deliver more seats in England than in Scotland. There is also the separate problem in Scotland that the seats in which Tories have the strongest baseline in 2005 are mainly not Labour held.
The absence of a voting intention question is instructive. I suspect that the real purpose of this poll is not so much to test ability to influence voters, but more to determine whether it is worth devoting resources to target seats in Scotland.
The findings suggest that it is worth targeting SNP seats, but also, that there may be more mileage in targeting LD held seats – or at least those Lab or SNP seats where there is a sizeable LD vote to squeeze.
At the same time, one can discern key themes for a Scotland wide campaign to ensure that the overall Tory vote holds up – even in those seats which have not been targeted. This matters since Tories will want to demonstrate not just additional Scottish MPs, but also that they have a base across Scotland, not just in a handful of seats. That is especially important if the target seats campaign only delivers 2 or 3 seats rather than 5-8.
Paul H-J
I agree with modt of your analysis, not least with your conclusion that there will be no great progress for Cons in Scotland. In fact I do not see any reason to believe that there wil be much change for the other parties either.
Labour and the LibDems are losing votes and the SNP are on the way up so I think that Con gains from SNP are very unlikely. There are only two anyway and there would need to be serious negative local issues for such an upset against the trend.
As I am In Argyll, I should be the first to see if your speculation about spending money in LibDem seats is right.
The Libdem MSP will certainly lose a proportion of his previous share of the poll. If it is a small percentage, it needs to brake unfeasably in favour of the Con for there to be a change of party and if it is a large proportion, and the share that goes to the SNP is greater than the Con share as I expect, then the greater the LibDem loss, the more likely an SNP win.
I think the C|on will still be in second place, but I wouldn’t bet on the winner.
Your point about the resources on the ground may be the determining factor. Con activists are too evenly dispersed. If none of the Ashcroft largesse is spent in Scotland, you can expect OLDNAT to tell you that this is a foretaste of a Con government’s lack of interest in, and unwillingness to spend money on Scotland.
John,
I can’t be sure, but I would imagine that Con activists in Scotland are far from evenly dispersed. The problem is more likely to be the opposite – they are too concentrated in areas like Tayside and Grampian where they will be expending their efforts against an equally strong SNP machine instead of those weaker Lab or LD seats where their efforts would be better rewarded.
The quandary is that it would be wrong in democratic terms for Cons to abandon those areas where they were “strongest” in 2005 simply because their prime opponents are stronger still.
Paul H-J
I have seen a surprisingly well attended constituency party event in a constituency where they came fourth and I think the number of active party members may not be in proportion to the vote. Sometimes the vote is an anti-Labour or anti-SNP vote and while there is hard core of committed party members who will do some work when called upon on (rather like the Socialists) Labour and SNP also have a wider membership which includes fair weather friends. Theese will enthusiastically back their party when it is winning and will drift away when it is not.
The few remaining Conservatives are loyal and, in Scoland, they need to be to persevere.