There's not a huge amount more I can say about the new YouGov poll, because unlike John Curtice I haven't had the advantage of seeing the datasets - and given that this is a Bank Holiday weekend, it's not completely impossible they might not be published until Tuesday. However, Curtice's own article does reveal a few interesting titbits. Firstly, the independence question was asked again -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 47% (-1)
No 53% (+1)
This is more likely to be margin of error 'noise' than a genuine easing down of support for independence. It looks to me as if the Yes vote with YouGov has been hovering around the 48% mark since the big methodological change a few months ago. Similarly with Survation, it's been hovering around the 49% mark - sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower, but it was bang on 49% in the most recent poll a few days ago. Bear in mind that both firms now weight by recalled referendum vote, so we can be fairly sure that the Yes share has genuinely increased from the 45% recorded on September 18th. This also means that poll results now are not directly comparable with pre-referendum poll results, so the people (and unfortunately they do exist) who claim that "YouGov's figures are much the same as before referendum day, and look what happened then" are barking up the wrong tree.
The percentage of respondents who want another independence referendum within ten years has slipped slightly from 40% last month to 36% now. That figure is obviously much lower than the 59% who said the same thing in the Survation poll, but that's largely because of different methodology. Survation don't seem to offer a Don't Know option on that question - so every respondent is forced to give an opinion. More importantly, they also offer a far more realistic range of options than YouGov, with the two extremes being that a referendum should never take place, and that there should be another referendum within two years (there's also an option of within five years). In YouGov's case, the option of a referendum within ten years IS one of the two extremes, and seems to be presented to respondents last. Other than Don't Know, the six options are "never", "not for at least 50 years", "not for at least 25 years", "not for at least 15 years", "not for at least 10 years" or "within 10 years". The unspoken message being sent to respondents is that you're on the fringes if you select the last option - and the fact that 36% still did so speaks volumes. Even more significantly, a combined total of 49% selected one of the last two options, which clearly implies there should be a referendum within 15 years (ie. less than the fabled 'generation') -
Less than fifteen years : 49% (-2)
More than fifteen years : 44% (n/c)
By the way, a mere 16% say there should never be another referendum.
Encouragingly, there is now an absolute majority of respondents who think that, regardless of their own preference, there will be another referendum within ten years. Clearly, Jim Murphy's sterling efforts in talking up the prospect of that happening is helping to normalise the idea. Thanks, Jim!
There probably WILL be another referendum within ten years : 54% (+4)
There probably WON'T be another referendum within ten years : 33% (-4)
Curtice also implies that roughly half of the Lib Dems' 7% support is made up of tactical voters. This may be a cause for concern for the SNP, because in most cases that will presumably be anti-SNP tactical voting. The only likely exception is in Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, where some voters may still (wrongly) assume that the Lib Dems are the best hope of keeping the Tories out. It's noted by Curtice that many people voting tactically this time did the same thing in 2010, so in a sense the phenomenon is already 'factored in' to the baseline numbers - but that may not be much comfort to the SNP in Lib Dem-held seats. There won't have been many Tories voting Lib Dem to keep the SNP out five years ago - of if there were, they were behaving totally irrationally.
I still haven't been able to track down the fieldwork dates for the poll, although it seems to have concluded on Friday, which presumably means that only a small proportion of interviews took place after Miliband revealed on Thursday night that he might be prepared to help Cameron stay in office.
James, what do you make of Curtice's 44 seat prediction for the SNP?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotsman.com/news/john-curtice-still-hope-for-labour-in-scotland-1-3761699
Isn't it a bit weird that he just adds up all the subsamples from last week and says "Right, that's 2000 people, more than most full Scotish polls" and deems it relevant?
I do find it slightly amusing, because as you might remember, I and quite a few others spent the first month after the referendum pointing out the astonishing SNP surge that was taking place in subsamples, and Curtice studiously ignored that, insisting that only full-scale polls mattered.
DeleteI also recall Anthony Wells snidely observing that some people were spending far too much of their time collating subsamples - I wonder if he would say the same of Professor Curtice now?
I suppose the way to look at subsamples is to take them with a heavy pinch of salt, but at the same time look for big shifts/trends over a period of time. That can give you an idea of where things are going, roughly. That's how you were able to pick up on the SNP swing before a lot of other analysts because you didn't discount the subsamples.
DeleteCurtice seems to have looked at the subsample results over a period of time and determined that there is a consistent movement towards the SNP getting around 45% and Labour/Lib Dems consolidating their power bases. Do you agree with Curtice that the movement is indeed significant enough to take into consideration, as the original pro-SNP swing was last year?
There hasn't been any great shift in the YouGov sub-sample results.
DeleteDue to changes of methodology, it's very hard to pick up from sub-samples whether there is any real movement or not. For example, if you looked at Populus sub-sample results alone (as Mike Smithson did), you would have thought Labour were only a few points behind the SNP. They then changed their methodology in early February and started placing Labour 20+ points behind. Populus have had a bit higher Labour scores / lower SNP scores in the last few polls, but that's because they've started down-weighting SNP again.
If there was any significant movement against the SNP, it would have been picked up in the full scale polls, or in the two seat polls done by Ashcroft. In fact he found a significant increase in Dumfriesshire and basically no change in East Renfrewshire (with Murphy picking up a bit from Tories).
I am saying nothing other than enjoy.
Deleteyour link's not working. Got another? refresh?
Delete@eurofree
DeleteSadly it has been pulled.
I don't expect the polls, for those for and against independence, is going to change much in the next few years. I suspect it might go up if the Tories get in after this election. Labour seem to me as if they do not actually want to win, or even run an minority administration. Miliband has let himself be dragged all over the place by the Tories and the MSM over Scotland.
ReplyDeleteWe really need to understand why we lost last year, and what we are going to do differently in the future. I really am not keen on another independence referendum in the next few years.
I can fully appreciate the argument (although I don't necessarily agree with it) that it might be better from our own point of view not to have a second referendum for a while. But as I said yesterday, I would strongly urge any independence supporters who are members of online polling panels to be as positive as possible about an early referendum when responding to polls, regardless of their own views. Anything else will be abused by the London parties as permission to delegitimise the process of Scotland making decisions for itself (ie. "the SNP said it was going to be once in a generation, and this poll shows the public want us to use our powers at Westminster to force them to stick to that").
DeletePoll guru Kellner has also done his final prediction. He is predicting 50 seats for the SNP, although his arithmetic probably means that the SNP will not really have major influence in Westminster.
ReplyDeleteBasically, if his prediction was correct...David Cameron would remain PM.
Con 283, Libdem 32, UKIP 2, DUP 8 = 325 seats
Lab 261, SNP 50, SDLP 3, PC 3, GRN 1 = 318 seats
Oops, forgot link: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/03/zone-uncertainty/
DeleteIn that scenario, the SNP would have tonnes of influence. There would be a Tory government, but it would be incredibly weak and would be constantly losing votes.
DeleteOccasionally, perhaps, but 'constantly', no.
DeleteThe Tories 40 seats short of a majority, reliant on three other parties (including two nutjob parties) to outvote the others? They'd be losing votes constantly, not occasionally.
DeleteOccasional losses is what happened to John Major - and he had an absolute Conservative majority.
And you don't think a Labour/ SNP/ Green/PC alliance would be just as weak?
DeleteWhat alliance? A Labour minority government will be weak precisely because Miliband is REFUSING an "alliance".
DeleteSorry, I don't get it either.
DeleteYou've already said you'll vote down the Conservatives, so they can't deal with you.
And Labour won't be in government so they have nothing to offer you, and even if they did, they know you'll vote down the Cons anyway.
Where's the influence in that scenario?
Arguably - and it seems more apparent to me as the campaign progresses - it doesn't actually matter who we vote for anywhere in the UK, but particularly in Scotland.
DeleteInterest rates are set by markets. Taxes and benefits are tinkered with, but essentially there's only marginal differences which can be made or havoc results.
So what influence does any MP really have?
We were promised FFA in all but name if we voted no. "We" voted no. So we are sending SNP members to the toothless talking shop to fuc# with them - Parnell style - until they give us that.
I think you concern trolls are missing the glaringly obvious thing in all this posturing. Miliband is worse than useless. I would think he will turn out to be the worst PM ever if he gets the keys to No 10. And there is your weakness in the SNP argument. Will the English blame us enough to throw us out of their precious union, or will Scots forgive the SNP for maintaining such a ti# in power?
But influence? That is your civil service, your American Ambassador and your bosses of giant businesses who really have that. If voting made any difference they'd have stopped it long ago.
Anon isn't a concern troll - he's making no pretence of being anything other than an opponent of the SNP. But the answer to his very silly question is simple - the nature of the SNP's influence will be that they will win parliamentary votes.
DeleteIt seems that some people can't even conceive of influence that isn't backroom in nature.
I wish people would grasp how EXHAUSTING it's going to be for either group to make a government work with this kind of maths. People are assuming the LibDems will be able to comfortably vote along with UKIP and the DUP. Seriously? Are their Alliance buddies going to join in too and be seen lined up with the DUP? Are Cameron's backbenchers going to stay firm to the party line or be tempted to be sneaky hard-right rebels, stopping Cameron from doing anything halfway sensible? Does he really want to pay the DUP's tribute for their votes, with all the havoc that could cause with Wales and Scotland?
DeleteAs for Miliband, he has fewer problems but they're bigger. The SNP and Plaid will essentially form one group. The Greens will encourage green-types to peel off against anything that looks too anti-environment. The SNP and Plaid will demand better deals for their countries and all them (including the SDLP) say they'll try to pull Labour further to the left which will delight quite a few rebellious Old Labour backbenchers.
Whatever happens, the whips are going to have a hell of a tough time. And since no-one looks likely to force an election with a No Confidence vote, they'll either have to battle on for five years or go kamikaze and vote against themselves in an NC motion. It doesn't look pretty at all.
One point re Lib Dem "tactical" voters is that there may be some people who have been voting Lib Dem for years on that basis, e.g. natural Tories may have voted for Jo Swinson to keep Labour out in 2005 / 2010, or Labour supporters may have voted for Michael Moore to keep the Tories out in 2010. So the "tactical" support for the Lib Dems now may not necessarily be *new* support, gained as a result of anti-SNP sentiment.
ReplyDeleteThere's not going to be very much of that. I take your point about Tories in East Dunbartonshire switching from a tactical anti-Labour vote in 2010 to a tactical anti-SNP vote now, but that's an unusual example.
DeleteLib Dems have been campaigning for years on the basis of "X can't win here, so you better vote for us to stop Y". They're still doing it in my seat (a Con / LD marginal) by appealing to Lab voters to unseat a Tory, even though they've been in coalition with them for the last five years! I suspect them drawing a big chunk of their support on a "tactical" basis is not a new thing or restricted to Scotland.
DeleteYes, but some of their tactical vote in 2010 will have been natural SNP voters trying to keep the Tories out. Those people won't be voting Lib Dem this time.
DeleteHere James, is it worth putting a £50 bet on Roxburgh/Borders and that going SNP? It seems tempting, like. Then again I'm considering putting a £20 on the Tories in that constituency instead... in case Kerr loses and I feel bad
ReplyDeleteDepends on whether the odds make it a value bet. Ashcroft had the seat as a virtual three-way tie. The Tories and Lib Dems both have better known candidates than the SNP, so might benefit from a personal vote. On the other hand, there's the issue of whether Ashcroft was understating the SNP vote due to the 2010 recall issue.
DeleteI think this is hilarious
ReplyDeletehttp://captiongenerator.com/37342/Scottish-Labour-2015
On majority required. I might be out of step and I am opened to being corrected. Presently it 326 required for a majority of 1. But wait a minute Sinn Fein never turns up so if they win say 5 seats and there is no reason not to think that they wont as I see it at the moment then any Party needs only a 321 to achieve that majority. You remove the speaker and his three deputies is it and that takes the majority target down to 317. Coalition permutations thus become all the greater in number.
ReplyDelete323 the five needs halved as to the speaker and deputies I suspect that one each from different parties are chosen to maintain the elected balance.
DeleteTa!
DeleteIf it turns out that Sinn Fein could have some influence in a hung parliament, then does anyone think they might actually take their seats at Westminster?
DeleteAfter crossing their fingers for the Queen's oath.
It would certainly shake things up if Sinn Fein ended up locking the Tories out of office.
SF have always refused to take their seats on the grounds they would serve no useful purpose in Westminster. They are not interested in the UK . They are only interested in ireland.
DeleteAs far as I know, according to recent statements, they do not intend to change that approach - people vote them in on an abstentionist ticket.
If they did want to change their approach it would have to be voted for an a general party assembly (Ard Fheis) which I believe takes place in the late autumn every year.
I can't imagine them calling for an emergency Ard Fheis . It does not seem to be on any cards
There would need to be a LOT of spadework done inside the Republican movement before SF would end their policy of abstention: it can't be done off-the-cuff based on a set of results from one election.
DeleteGerry Adams categorically ruled it out only a couple of weeks ago, so if they went back on that it would be a U-turn of almost Clegg-like proportions.
DeleteDon't forget that Ashcroft polls showed a big increase in Lib Dems vote between the standard voting question and the constituency voting question. If the apparent Lib Dem increase is tactical voters now thinking about their constituency, then the Ashcroft polls may have already picked that up.
ReplyDeleteWell that travesty on BBC tonight convinces me that we cant have another Referendum until something is done about the Brit Nat Brainwashing Corporation. They are beyond a joke.
ReplyDeleteI actually thought that was a very good debate. The media will have a hell of a job trying to spin it as anything other than a win for Sturgeon, although doubtless they'll still try.
DeleteThe audience were unnecessarily partisan, but they balanced each other out.
Back in 1997 Tony Blair considered devolving broadcasting which was vehemently blocked by the Scottish members and we now know why.
Delete