Tonight's much-trailed GB-wide ComRes poll is out, with the most eye-catching finding being that 40% of respondents agree that Jeremy Corbyn should be "removed by Labour MPs", while only 31% disagree. It's impossible to make much sense of that result, though, given that ComRes didn't bother to ask whether David Cameron should be removed by Tory MPs. You'd think that would be a much more natural question to put to people, bearing in mind that Cameron has been hanging around for a decade and Corbyn has been in harness for just two months. I suspect the Labour "moderates" might even be a tad disappointed that 60% declined to say that their party leader should be deposed.
Of most interest to us is that the SNP are on 5% of the Britain-wide vote, and the Scottish subsample numbers are : SNP 54%, Conservatives 16%, Labour 14%, Liberal Democrats 7%, UKIP 5%, Greens 3%. The subsample can't be considered statistically reliable, but nevertheless it's fascinating that on some questions, Scottish respondents are bang in line with the Britain-wide results, but on others they take a completely divergent view. For example, Scottish respondents agree with English respondents that a UK ground attack in Syria/Iraq should not be ruled out under all circumstances, and that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be trusted to keep their families safe. But they part company from English respondents by overwhelmingly rejecting the idea that Cameron can keep us safe, and by narrowly opposing UK air strikes in Syria without UN authorisation.
Across Britain, Nicola Sturgeon is regarded favourably by 27% of respondents, and unfavourably by 38%. Those numbers are actually pretty good compared to many other leading politicians - Sturgeon has a better net rating than Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and George Osborne, which is nothing short of miraculous for a filthy separatist. But you won't be surprised to hear that she fares much better still where it actually matters - in Scotland, 61% regard her favourably, and only 24% unfavourably.
It's painfully obvious from the numbers that hardly anyone has even heard of Tim Farron, but he still manages to have a negative rating.
* * *
Mike "can't be arsed" Smithson on Twitter earlier today -
"Corbyn's 59.5% LAB leadership vote share compares with Duncan Smith's 60.7% in 2001 CON contest. 2 years & 2 months later IDS was booted out"
That would be a truly fabulous comparison if it wasn't for the fact that Corbyn's percentage was achieved against THREE opponents, while Duncan Smith had to face only one other candidate in the members' ballot.
I'm also highly dubious about Damian McBride's claim in the Guardian the other day that Jeremy Corbyn will be gone "within a week" if Sadiq Khan fails to win the London mayoralty in the spring. Does anyone seriously think Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would have been expected to resign as leader if Khan had lost?