More potentially good news for the SNP in the latest UK-wide Populus survey - the combined figure for parties other than Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats (which is all we have to go on for the moment) now stands at 12%, a three-point increase from the last survey. There is of course no way of telling yet whether this is due to increasing support for the SNP and Plaid Cymru or for UK-wide minor parties like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP, but at the very least it is in line with Saturday's ICM poll in suggesting that the squeeze on the non-Labour/Tory parties we saw in the autumn is now well and truly over. As in ICM, the Liberal Democrats see an increase in their share of the vote, while Labour is down a full five points to 28%.
Full figures -
Conservatives 42% (-1)
Labour 28% (-5)
Liberal Democrats 18% (+3)
Others 12% (+3)
So now begins the interminable wait to see what the Scottish breakdown is - but at least we know there'll be one eventually, which is not the case with ICM. I did have a quick peek at the Populus website on the off chance, but their 'latest poll' link directed me to a 'Fabulous Sex' survey for the News of the World, the fieldwork for which was supposedly carried out between the 23rd and 26th of February 2009. I know that polling is getting quicker, but that's impressive by any standards. Has someone at Populus invented a TARDIS?
Monday, February 9, 2009
My question has been answered
I wondered aloud in an earlier post how AM2/Scottish Unionist would deal with the unacceptable reality of increasing support for independence in the latest TNS System Three poll, and now I have my answer. He hasn't ignored it, he simply doesn't feel the mere results of the poll are terribly important or worthy of comment - apparently it's the SNP's reaction to the poll that is far more newsworthy! He's got a versatile range of moves, I'll give him that.
Anyway I've now gone straight to the horse's mouth with my challenge to him to simply update his earlier table of poll results, so if he lets my comment past moderation we'll see how he talks his way out of this one. I suspect it might involve some entertainingly inventive sophistry.
UPDATE : I actually completely misread AM2's post. Incredibly, he's not complaining about the SNP's own reaction to the poll, but rather that of TNS System Three's managing director Chris Eynon. Apparently by pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that his company's polls are somewhat positive for independence, this means that he's somehow outed himself as a Nationalist. Therefore his company's polls have no credibility whatsoever and the rather inconvenient figures they contain can be safely discounted. So in that case why did you include the earlier TNS System Three polls in your 'busted flush' table, AM2?
Anyway I've now gone straight to the horse's mouth with my challenge to him to simply update his earlier table of poll results, so if he lets my comment past moderation we'll see how he talks his way out of this one. I suspect it might involve some entertainingly inventive sophistry.
UPDATE : I actually completely misread AM2's post. Incredibly, he's not complaining about the SNP's own reaction to the poll, but rather that of TNS System Three's managing director Chris Eynon. Apparently by pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that his company's polls are somewhat positive for independence, this means that he's somehow outed himself as a Nationalist. Therefore his company's polls have no credibility whatsoever and the rather inconvenient figures they contain can be safely discounted. So in that case why did you include the earlier TNS System Three polls in your 'busted flush' table, AM2?
Is nuclear power an issue of 'national security'?
For most people, the Calman process is all about exploring the ways in which Scottish autonomy might be enhanced - while the greatest fear for many is that it might turn out to be damp squib and that little will change. But for one small, narrow interest group - namely Westminster Labour MPs - this is in fact a process about stripping the Scottish parliament of powers it currently holds. Oh sorry, I appear to have gone slightly off-message there. What I meant to say is that they see it as an important 'opportunity' to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the devolution settlement and to see in what ways it can be 'strengthened', specifically by examining in a 'mature' way whether there is now a case that certain powers could be exercised more 'effectively' by a different layer of government than they are at present. It's just an extraordinary coincidence that the most appropriate layer of government for all the important powers always turns out to be Westminster.
Yesterday, Scotland on Sunday reported that Labour MPs - but intriguingly not their Holyrood cousins - want to return the crucial planning powers over new nuclear power stations to Westminster. They claim to be motivated by a desire to prevent UK government energy policy being 'frustrated' by the Scottish government's planning powers. Or to put it another way, they don't much care for the fact that the Scottish government is daring to suggest it might actually use its legal powers to legitimately block something in line with the express wishes of the Scottish electorate at the ballot box. That would never do, would it?
Perhaps sensing the weakness of this line of attack, the MPs have a back-up argument - that nuclear energy policy is a matter of national security. In a sense I can see their point - a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station would have devastating consequences, as would the theft of nuclear material. But the irony is that all of this only applies for as long as there actually are nuclear power stations. Labour MPs can rest assured that the SNP's policy is very kindly eliminating that national security worry for them, and they can now sleep easy in their beds. Problem solved.
Yesterday, Scotland on Sunday reported that Labour MPs - but intriguingly not their Holyrood cousins - want to return the crucial planning powers over new nuclear power stations to Westminster. They claim to be motivated by a desire to prevent UK government energy policy being 'frustrated' by the Scottish government's planning powers. Or to put it another way, they don't much care for the fact that the Scottish government is daring to suggest it might actually use its legal powers to legitimately block something in line with the express wishes of the Scottish electorate at the ballot box. That would never do, would it?
Perhaps sensing the weakness of this line of attack, the MPs have a back-up argument - that nuclear energy policy is a matter of national security. In a sense I can see their point - a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station would have devastating consequences, as would the theft of nuclear material. But the irony is that all of this only applies for as long as there actually are nuclear power stations. Labour MPs can rest assured that the SNP's policy is very kindly eliminating that national security worry for them, and they can now sleep easy in their beds. Problem solved.
Thumbs down to a less-than-Royal Mail
So the polling evidence is that three-quarters of the British public oppose privatisation of the Royal Mail, and that a full nine-tenths would oppose it if it involved some form of foreign ownership (and for legal reasons there could be no guarantee it wouldn't). You can't really quibble about figures as overwhelming as those, which leaves only one remaining question - do we or do we not have a "listening government"? Answers on a postcard...
If you thought the 'four candles' sketch was funny, wait till you hear the hysterical Obama 'ice cream' gag!
If you believed the events of recent months might have significantly healed the racial and cultural divide in the US, take a look at this viral e-mail my mother received earlier today from an American pal of hers who appears to be just slightly right-wing -
"Ben and Jerry's is coming out with an unbelievable new ice cream in honor of the messiah who was just sworn in as our 44th President. It is being churned in Washington DC and appropriately being named:
'Baracky Road'
half chocolate and half vanilla surrounded by fruits and nuts"
To quote Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder II, if I appear not to be laughing it's only because I fear my sides would split. There have of course been a lot of e-mails over the last couple of years claiming to prove that Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist or not a natural-born citizen or whatever, but this is the first openly racist one I've come across and I was genuinely quite shocked (as was my mother).
For a (marginally) more harmless laugh on the same topic, you could try this old favourite, the Conservapedia entry for Barack Obama. You might think it's a deliberate self-parody, but it's not!
"Ben and Jerry's is coming out with an unbelievable new ice cream in honor of the messiah who was just sworn in as our 44th President. It is being churned in Washington DC and appropriately being named:
'Baracky Road'
half chocolate and half vanilla surrounded by fruits and nuts"
To quote Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder II, if I appear not to be laughing it's only because I fear my sides would split. There have of course been a lot of e-mails over the last couple of years claiming to prove that Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist or not a natural-born citizen or whatever, but this is the first openly racist one I've come across and I was genuinely quite shocked (as was my mother).
For a (marginally) more harmless laugh on the same topic, you could try this old favourite, the Conservapedia entry for Barack Obama. You might think it's a deliberate self-parody, but it's not!
The wrong name is written on the body
If there was any respite to be had from the all-pervasive culture of Jock-bashing, you'd think you might find it in the pages of a Jeanette Winterson novel. Alas, not a bit of it. I reach a mere page 19 and find the following line -
"I took to carrying a tartan rug wherever I went, like a far-out member of the Scottish Nationalist Party"
You'd think if she felt the need to chuck in a gratuitous insult about us she might have started by ensuring she at least got the name of the party right. Perhaps we should be grateful, though - the phrase "far-out member" at least seems to admit to the possibility there are some sane members as well!
"I took to carrying a tartan rug wherever I went, like a far-out member of the Scottish Nationalist Party"
You'd think if she felt the need to chuck in a gratuitous insult about us she might have started by ensuring she at least got the name of the party right. Perhaps we should be grateful, though - the phrase "far-out member" at least seems to admit to the possibility there are some sane members as well!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Support for independence up 3%
A new TNS/System Three poll for the Sunday Herald has shown that support for independence has risen to 38%, up from 35% in October, while there has been a concurrent fall of 3% in support for the status quo, which now stands at 40%.
First thought that entered my head - how on earth will AM2/Scottish Unionist cope with the reality of this poll? After all, it's only a matter of days since he ran the hysterical headline "Independence is a busted flush". I fear he may ignore it, but perhaps I'm being too cynical. I'll set him a challenge - why doesn't he simply update this table he used in his post to illustrate the 'collapse' in support for independence :
10 Apr 2008: Progressive Scottish Opinion/Daily Mail – 41%
13 Apr 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 41%
07 July 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 39%
11 July 2008: YouGov/Telegraph – 36%
08 Sep 2008: YouGov/Sunday Times – 34%
26 Oct 2008: YouGov/Sunday Times – 31%
30 Jan 2009: YouGov/Sunday Times – 29%
Of course, anyone who has closely followed the polling on independence will know that this table was always grossly misleading, because Progressive Scottish Opinion and TNS System Three have typically - for whatever reason - shown a much higher level of support for independence than YouGov. But fair's fair - if that's the method of comparison he likes, support for independence has just rocketed by an astonishing 9% since the last YouGov poll.
First thought that entered my head - how on earth will AM2/Scottish Unionist cope with the reality of this poll? After all, it's only a matter of days since he ran the hysterical headline "Independence is a busted flush". I fear he may ignore it, but perhaps I'm being too cynical. I'll set him a challenge - why doesn't he simply update this table he used in his post to illustrate the 'collapse' in support for independence :
10 Apr 2008: Progressive Scottish Opinion/Daily Mail – 41%
13 Apr 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 41%
07 July 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 39%
11 July 2008: YouGov/Telegraph – 36%
08 Sep 2008: YouGov/Sunday Times – 34%
26 Oct 2008: YouGov/Sunday Times – 31%
30 Jan 2009: YouGov/Sunday Times – 29%
Of course, anyone who has closely followed the polling on independence will know that this table was always grossly misleading, because Progressive Scottish Opinion and TNS System Three have typically - for whatever reason - shown a much higher level of support for independence than YouGov. But fair's fair - if that's the method of comparison he likes, support for independence has just rocketed by an astonishing 9% since the last YouGov poll.
New Labour buries more bad news - in the snow
It was of course utterly predictable that James Purnell's plan to find jobs for millions of people on benefit would be somewhat compromised (that's the kindest way I can think of putting it) by the small matter of what might just prove to be the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Sunday Times is reporting that Purnell has had to postpone the announcement of preferred private sector bidders for the job-finding contracts this week, because the firms involved were demanding too much government cash. But fortunately, providence has provided Purnell with a convenient and devilishly plausible cover-story - the announcement had to be indefinitely deferred after a preparatory meeting last week was cancelled "because of the snow".
Am I being too cynical here? Probably Alastair Campbell would say that my problem is that I see everything through "a prism" of some sort or another. Not quite sure what the "prism" would be in this case, but whenever anyone points out a clear-cut instance of New Labour spin it usually turns out there's a "prism" involved somewhere.
Am I being too cynical here? Probably Alastair Campbell would say that my problem is that I see everything through "a prism" of some sort or another. Not quite sure what the "prism" would be in this case, but whenever anyone points out a clear-cut instance of New Labour spin it usually turns out there's a "prism" involved somewhere.
The other 'respect agenda'
Scotland on Sunday is reporting that David Cameron will ensure any administration he leads establishes a far better relationship with the SNP government in Edinburgh than Gordon Brown has chosen to thus far. Mischievously, the article even invokes the phrase 'the respect agenda', hitherto associated with the government's never-ending drive to ensure that no child is left behind - all must have ASBOs.
The hint seems to be that Cameron envisages the Scots in his Shadow Cabinet - Michael Gove, Liam Fox and Lord Strathclyde - playing a key role in all this. Frankly, I'm struggling to imagine the insufferable Dr Fox in the role of cross-party bridge-builder. However, for all his reputation as an idealogue (a neocon, some would say), Gove did manage to strike a refreshing tone of humility when discussing the success of devolution (and specifically the Tories' previous block-headed determination to prevent it happening) when he appeared on Question Time the week before last. But it's the age-old question - Gove and others may be able to talk the talk, but will they walk the walk once in power? After all, the Tories went into the 1979 election nominally still open to the possibility of devolution, with the pro-assembly former PM Sir Alec Douglas-Home famously promising that a Thatcher government would introduce a 'better' form of devolution than the one Labour proposed. Perhaps a warning from history that it's best not to take vague pledges from a Tory opposition on the Scottish constitutional question at face value.
After all, a Tory government is highly likely to be elected with only a handful of Scottish seats, so in spite of Cameron's protestations that he wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not England, we all know it won't be the Scottish electorate he'll be primarily pandering to.
The hint seems to be that Cameron envisages the Scots in his Shadow Cabinet - Michael Gove, Liam Fox and Lord Strathclyde - playing a key role in all this. Frankly, I'm struggling to imagine the insufferable Dr Fox in the role of cross-party bridge-builder. However, for all his reputation as an idealogue (a neocon, some would say), Gove did manage to strike a refreshing tone of humility when discussing the success of devolution (and specifically the Tories' previous block-headed determination to prevent it happening) when he appeared on Question Time the week before last. But it's the age-old question - Gove and others may be able to talk the talk, but will they walk the walk once in power? After all, the Tories went into the 1979 election nominally still open to the possibility of devolution, with the pro-assembly former PM Sir Alec Douglas-Home famously promising that a Thatcher government would introduce a 'better' form of devolution than the one Labour proposed. Perhaps a warning from history that it's best not to take vague pledges from a Tory opposition on the Scottish constitutional question at face value.
After all, a Tory government is highly likely to be elected with only a handful of Scottish seats, so in spite of Cameron's protestations that he wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not England, we all know it won't be the Scottish electorate he'll be primarily pandering to.
Chiara's hat-trick
Exciting news that the brilliant Chiara will sing for Malta for a third time at the Eurovision Song Contest in May - not even Johnny Logan and Cliff Richard managed the hat-trick! In Birmingham in 1998 she finished third, in Kyiv in 2005 she was second - will she complete the logical sequence and win this time round? Probably not given that her song What If We isn't quite strong enough, but as ever her vocal performance will get the maximum value out of it, and I certainly expect her to coast through to the final.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)