A new full-scale Scottish poll from Survation has been released. Curiously, this isn't the same Survation voting intention poll we had a sneak preview of yesterday, because the fieldwork dates are slightly different. I would expect that one will be on its way shortly from the Record.
Voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Survation, 6th-10th March) :
SNP 47.1% (+1.8)
Labour 28.0% (+0.5)
Conservatives 14.5% (-0.5)
Liberal Democrats 4.0% (-1.0)
UKIP 3.4% (+0.2)
Greens 2.3% (-1.1)
The fieldwork for this poll slightly predates the most recent YouGov, so the best way of looking at the results is as corroboration of the message from YouGov that absolutely nothing has changed. Survation are suggesting that the SNP lead has increased by a trivial amount, but has remained within the previous range of 17-24 points, whereas YouGov suggested that the SNP lead had slipped by a trivial amount, but had remained within the previous range of 16-21 points. In other words, it's highly likely that all the small fluctuations we've seen since October are just meaningless margin of error 'noise', and that the huge SNP advantage has remained absolutely rock-solid over that long period. There was a little burst of optimism from Labour after last month's Survation poll showed their deficit being cut to "only" 17%, which was a post-referendum low - but it looks very much like that minor progress was a statistical mirage.
One point that I probably haven't stressed enough when discussing previous polls is that, even though this is a Westminster election, Labour's current predicament is even worse than their landslide defeat in the 2011 Holyrood contest. Survation are suggesting that 20% of people who voted Labour in 2011 are planning to vote SNP in May, while only 8% of people who voted SNP in 2011 are minded to move in the opposite direction.
The news is also grim for the Tories, because Survation have failed to replicate YouGov's finding that support for Cameron's party had jumped. We wondered at the time whether that finding was a reflection of the Tories' better showing of late in GB-wide polls, or was just a freakish result caused by sampling variation - well, the latter possibility is now looking somewhat more likely.
The poll also contains voting intention figures for next year's Scottish Parliament election...
Scottish Parliament constituency ballot :
SNP 49.2% (+1.2)
Labour 26.9% (-0.8)
Conservatives 12.9% (+0.2)
Liberal Democrats 5.0% (+0.3)
Greens 3.1% (-0.6)
UKIP 2.2% (-0.1)
Scottish Parliament regional list ballot :
SNP 41.3% (+2.7)
Labour 22.5% (+0.4)
Greens 12.6% (-0.5)
Conservatives 11.9% (-0.1)
Liberal Democrats 5.7% (-0.8)
UKIP 5.0% (-1.5)
* * *
UPDATE : The second Survation poll of the evening is now out, and it shows an even bigger SNP lead, plus a Yes lead on the independence question. You can find full details in a fresh post HERE.
If that's the one the SNP hopped onto the back of, it seems I wasn't far off.
ReplyDeleteGulp....!
ReplyDeleteNow you know why the Daily Record is lashing out at the SNP and pro-independence supporters.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source for this?
ReplyDeleteah, found it.
Deletehttp://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/publicworks/UnisonScotlandAttitudesPoll.pdf
A recent comment here said that above 28% would mean joy, relatively speaking, for the Red Tories, no matter what the SNP polled. So if the SNP poll 47% as above and Labour poll 28.5% and lose just 35-40 seats then they'd experience "joy"? Talk about managing your expectations...
ReplyDeleteHolyrood constituency VI:
ReplyDeleteSNP 49.2% (+1.2)
Lab 26.9% (-0.8)
Con 12.9% (+0.2)
LD 5.0% (+0.3)
UKIP 2.2% (-0.1)
Green 3.1% (-0.6)
Holyrood list VI:
SNP 41.3% (+2.7)
Lab 22.5% (+0.4)
Green 12.6% (-0.5)
Con 11.9% (-0.1)
LD 5.7% (-0.8)
UKIP 5.0% (-1.5)
Changes compared to the Daily Record poll in mid-February.
The message is getting through. Constituency SNP, List Green. Not far from Greens being the official opposition. Poor Ruth.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great pity that message is getting through, because it's an absolutely suicidal message that has every chance of costing us a pro-independence majority in the next Scottish Parliament.
DeleteNot quite sure what you mean here James. That poll once again gives a majority for the SNP and 60% of seats for pro-Yes parties.
DeleteOf course if you support SNP it makes no sense to vote Green regional, but if you support Green + indy, then SNP + Green is fine surely?
I hear what you are saying re the possible outcomes James. But you seem to be assuming that SNP supporters are trying to game the system by getting pro indolence Greens elected. It seems to me that it could just as easily be Greens lending the SNP their votes in the constituencies. Do you have info on how the movement of votes between SNP and SGP tends to flow for Westminster, Holyrood Consistency, Holyrood List?
Deleteindependence not indolence !@£$-ing autocorrect
DeleteI have two votes. I need to consider what is likely to happen to my List vote. As things stand the SNP hold 5 out of 9 constituencies in Glasgow and 2 list MSPs. I believe that in 2016 the SNP will win at least 8 out of 9, possibly 9.
DeleteIf the 2015 shows the SNP winning 7 or 8 out of 8 in Glasgow Westminster seats, I will be even more confident of this.
There are 7 List seats, for the SNP to get a List seat after taking 8 out of 9 Constituencies, the SNP List vote would need to over 56%. I think that is unlikely. If the SNP take all 9 then the SNP List vote would need to be over 62%.
On the other hand the Greens currently have 1 list MSP in Glasgow. With 12.5% of the vote they would have two and be moving towards a third, squeezing Ruth Davidson out of Holyrood. I quite like that and will vote acccordingly.
James you are just wrong on this front.
DeleteThe greens will not stand in the constituencies, therefore every single green list vote will be more powerful than an equivalent SNP one.
Why would it matter if the list vote mean that a green candidate, and not an SNP one was elected, if the only qualifying factor was if they are pro-independence or not?
So even if the SNP missed out on compensating seats from the list because people had voted green instead, each 'single green vote is worth more than each single SNP list vote because it is 'compensating' for 0 constituency seats
EVERY green list vote will be used to 'compensate' for no constituency seats, whereas SNP list votes will be worth less as the SNP will *always* win some constituencies.
The use of "Decoy lists" as an SNP constituency, green list vote would be, is quite well established (bad) practice in other countries that can act as a very effective way of gaming the electoral system.
The *only* way this could harm pro independence supporters is if the greens were looking like not even gaining any list seats, clearly that is unlikely; and they could even be the 3rd largest party.
Poster1 : No, I'm not wrong. I have no problem with people whose first choice is the Greens voting Green. But tactical voting on the list simply DOES NOT WORK, for reasons I've explained about a billion times. We heard all the same nonsense in 2011.
DeleteOk got you james. Under a system that aims to be proportional, tactical voting is going to be really hard to get right to the extent it more than likely may backfire.
Delete"every chance of costing us a pro-independence majority in the next Scottish Parliament."
DeleteHowever what I was trying to say is that SNP/Green vote will *never* turn a possible pro-independence majority (from SNP/SNP votes) into a anti-independence majority. The risk of voting SNP/Green instead of SNP/SNP removing a pro independence majority in parliament is 0.
Tactical voting in constituencies; yes that's rubbish. Tactical voting in EU elections; yes that's rubbish.
But an SNP/Green vote has absolutely no chance of changing a pro independence parliment into an anti-independence parliament.
In fact it only offers the opportunity to turn around 50% support for independence into a 2/3 majority in parliament.
If you believe in independence, but not necessarily the full Green or SNP manifesto: an SNP/Green vote is objectively more likely to return more pro independence candidates than an SNP/SNP vote.
You've got it all upside down. Tactical voting works in constituencies, not on the list.
DeleteThe SNP are not good enough ideologically. The SNP don't support nationalised rail fully, they support TTIP in principle and their benefits/taxation policies are cowardly, they don't have the balls to tax middle-class people. The Greens do though. That is why we should vote Green. Also you cannot split the vote in the list. You just can't. Ao voting Green is actually better than voting SNP because then the D'hont method won't divide Green votes by anything as the Greens won't win constituencies
DeleteIf you consider what the SNP cannot do, two pretty big issues would actually be addressed if there was an SNP/Green coalition.
ReplyDeleteDrug decriminalisation
Apartheid schooling.
The SNP will not touch either of these. The Greens could end up allowing these issues to finally be addressed.
Also getting Scotland off oil and onto hydro,tidal,wave and wind power
DeleteIt makes perfect sense to vote 'pro-Independence' Green in the list vote in areas where the SNP are liable to sweep the board in FPTP, as the Greens could clean up and become the 3rd force ahead of the Tories. With 20% of the list vote, the Greens could become the 2nd party at the expense of 2 or 3 SNP members.
ReplyDeleteWhat a message that would send. Imagine a parliament 2/3s full of pro-independence MSPs...
https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/578663358427217921
If UKIP decides to run candidates in the constituency seats in 2016, this will further lower the threshold of victory for the SNP. Scotland Votes currently is predicting 67 constituency seats for the SNP and only two list seats (presumably one in the Northeast and one in the South). They are looking at 24 Labour list seats and 3 Labour constituency seats. Anything that can be done to negatively impact those Labour list seat numbers is surely a good thing for 2016.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I understand the concern that James is raising. For those of us who are anoraks, a SNP constituency-Green List vote split would make some sense. However, it has the potential to cause confusion amongst those who are not as informed as those here.
Additionally, the split may work well in Glasgow and the Northeast, but has the potential to backfire in other regions. James is adverse to taking that risk as are many staunch SNP supporters. The fact that the Scottish Greens are running candidates for Westminster which could impact potential SNP gains and save some Labour MPs is also causing many in the SNP to question Green motives.
I prefer that people just vote for whom they think is best and let the seats work themselves out as the results come in.
You say you'd prefer people to vote who they think is best. Well the Greens/SSP are by and large voting SNP this year. They'll return and vote Green/SSPnext year obvs
Delete@ Brian Nicholson
DeleteInteresting point re: regional differrences. Do you have a view on how an SNP/SGP split vote would work out in the Edinburgh area?
PS I'm a different Anonymous from the one above.
In theory, it would make more sense to vote Green in a region where the SNP are likely to take all or all but one of the constituency seats, because the percentage needed on the second vote to win additional seats would be very high. The SNP did "beat the system" in the North East in 2011, but that was by taking >50% of the second vote there.
DeleteI think it's much too early to be talking seriously about this though because the Holyrood polls could change significantly after the UK election.
I don't see the SNP sweeping all the seats in the Edinburgh region so the SNP-Green split could backfire in that area.
DeleteYou SNP people are so arrogant. The SNP refused a deal with the Greens so how can you expect us just to bend over and let you take all the Yes votes? A Home Rule alliance was on the table and the SNP decided that they didn't need it. In other news voting Green is better for two reasons 1: The Greens are actually leftwing and the SNP just looks leftwing because Labour isn't. 2: The d'hont method divides list votes by the number of constituencies, if all SNP voters voted Green then that would produce more Yes MSPs than if they voted SNP with the added advantage of getting a green/SNP coalition to keep the SNP from drifting rightwards
DeleteJames Mackenzie without the "charm".
DeleteJames, you are beginning to show signs (on this subject alone, I would stress) of the same 'proprietor syndrome' that I believe you set this web site up in order to counter. To accuse the previous post as being 'James Mackenzie without the "charm"' Is a simple insult plus dismissal, backed by authority (ownwership). No argument what so ever.
DeleteIn fact, your most used argument on this issue seems to be 'I've explained this a million times, why don't yous just stop it?', but without explaining fully what it is you have explained a million times.
For those of us (and I think it's the majority of non party political YES voters) that see the goal, first and foremost, as simply Independence, then without party loyalty the List element of the Scottish voting system (that was set up specifically to frustrate Indy support) seems ripe for an educated and informed tactical vote. That is after all what the SNP is currently riding the wave of after the referendum campaign, is it not?
braco
Point one of anon post I disagree with. The Greens were as arrogant and self motivated as anybody in the SNP leadership regarding the YES alliance concept. More so if you factor in selflessness for the Indy cause. This is besides the point re my last post, as it would have been nice to have heard that, or any, argument against the points being made by an on topic poster. Anon or not.
DeleteProbably end up with a massive ridneck on this when it turns out anon is James Mackenzie! :-0 but I am sure you get my drift.
braco
The reason I'm not going to explain something I've already explained a billion times before is, how can I put this, because I've already explained it a billion times before, and it's therefore available for anyone to read - in generous abundance.
DeleteWith all due respect, your first point is utterly absurd. The logic of it is that I should have to suppress my own opinions because I run this blog. Let me just gently say that I see things in the opposite way.
The criticism of James Mackenzie is not that he expresses his own opinions, but that he censors others. I don't delete comments without a very good reason. But, no, that isn't why I set up this blog, which predates Better Nation by quite a bit. Mackenzie may well already have been writing the Two Doctors blog by May 2008, but if so I hadn't yet discovered it.
James, I wasn't talking about James Mackenzie in particular, just the use of him as an obvious put down. I.e. most on the site see him as an illiberal holier than thou hypocrite and therefore by associating an anon. post with him among a readership (including myself) that mostly agrees on that particular analysis of Mr MacKenzies politics, it is not something that could be called an argument. More a smear.
DeleteOn the point of your argument made 'a billion times'. I have been a reader of your blog for years. It's brilliant (thanks) but it's subject matter, by it's nature is repetitive. Arguments are constantly being re run here, over and over again. To those that have not been here for years, each time may be their first. That's why argument, (all argument on a public ever changing readership blog), is like painting the forth rail bridge. Never ending. I just like the issues to be covered via argument, even if raised by a person that disagrees. (Trolls excluded of course).
And by the way, as I say, I have been reading this blog a long time and I am still not aware that you have put forward a satisfactory argument against the kind of tactical voting on 'the list', that seems to repeatedly comes up as a possible way forward for Pro Indy voters come 2016. Perhaps it's a good subject of a future article?
braco
Interesting use of the word 'satisfactory' - I presume that means I could explain it another billion times and it still wouldn't count, because it wouldn't be satisfactory in your view. I'm quite sure I have written articles on this subject before, and I haven't deleted anything.
Delete"James Mackenzie without the charm" was a reference to the fact that Anon was putting forward arguments that Mackenzie would probably agree with, but he was doing so in an openly sarcastic and bitter way.
Didn't read it that way myself but I am sure you have to put up with a lot of trolls, so you may well be right.
DeleteAs far as you explaining things again, you seem to be assuming that as your argument is obviously devastating, and that I still disagree, then my mind must obviously be closed on the matter and therefore not worth engaging with. I can assure you, in all sincerity, that I want to work out the absolute best way to use my votes come 2016. I value your analysis (as input, not gospel) and that's the reason I continue to ask for an explanation of an obviously heartfelt view of yours, that until now I don't see (on balance) the logic of. I am not trying to rubbish your view. I am just trying to find alternative reasons, from sources I respect, with which to test my own 'heartfelt' analysis. We may never convert one another to our own particular analysis, but until I feel I fully understand your view should I not keep on picking away at the knot? Is this not what sites such as your own (and their readerships) have, during the Indy campaign, broken new ground doing?
braco
I'm not asking you to agree with my argument. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that my argument exists, which you seem reluctant to do no matter how many times I put it forward. We discussed this only a few weeks ago, didn't we?
DeleteExactly James, we did. But then today you put forward 'You've got it all upside down. Tactical voting works in constituencies, not on the list.'
DeleteThis just does not make sense to me. IF the constituencies are in the bag for the SNP and the Greens are not running in those constituencies, then surely voting Green on the list is a logical tactic for pro Indy supporters to maximise the value of their list vote ?
I don't think we are going to agree on this, and I don't want to eat up any more of your time on it (at the moment :). So let's just rejoin the argument the next time it flares up on one of your future threads. ;-)
braco
"IF the constituencies are in the bag for the SNP"
DeleteSigh. The whole point I'm making (or at least a significant part of it) is that the constituencies are not "in the bag". They can never be "in the bag". When the polls start showing the SNP on 60% of the vote, then and only then might you have a point.
How on earth can that be true when the constituency vote is first past the post and we have 4 or 5 parties (6 if UKIP decide to split the vote further)? SNP are looking to sweep the board with 45% in less than a couple months. 60% is a tad exaggerated surely? Also we are talking region by region.
Deletebraco
I'm absolutely serious - if the SNP are on 50% or below in the polls then we have no sodding idea what the results in the constituencies are going to be, because polls simply don't have that level of accuracy. The only way tactical voting on the list can work is if you literally know the constituency results in advance - and we don't.
Deletearguing over 2016 elections--pathetic
ReplyDeleteVote for SNP twice. What's the discussion about?
ReplyDeleteYour contribution water is well ......pathetic.
Someone over on UKPR is suggesting there will be a Daily Record/Survation poll being released tonight. 2 Scotland Polls both by Survation!
ReplyDeleteNot sure about that. There's been no trailing of a poll by the Record political editor (Davie Clegg). The tweets about a second poll seem to have started from Ross Greer saying that to Mike Smithson, who repeated the message.
DeleteNCPolitics is also saying there is a poll coming for the Daily Record in the next hour. He seems to believe it is a different one.
DeleteOh well, there is a Record poll.
ReplyDeleteSNP 47, Lab 26, Con 16, LD 4.
I guess we now know why Davie wasn't trailing it.
2% drop in Labour VI in just a few hours!
Delete:-)