If Hamish Macdonnell was right in the Spectator Coffee House a couple of days ago, the SNP may actually be dismayed by their huge lead in the latest TNS-BMRB poll - he claimed that the party's ideal was for a narrower lead, so that supporters would know they really had to turn out to vote (and presumably not to stray on the all-important list vote). However, certainly much better to have a huge lead than no lead at all, which is what I feared when John MacKay started hinting about a "dramatic shift" at 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon! Here are the figures...
Constituency vote :
SNP 45% (+8)
Labour 27% (-11)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+3)
Regional list vote :
SNP 38% (+3)
Labour 25% (-10)
Conservatives 16% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 9% (+1)
Greens 8% (+3)
Although STV were keen to bill this as the last poll of the campaign, I've seen one or two people report that they've replied to voting intention questions for YouGov over the last couple of days, so unless that's a private poll for a political party it seems likely there's one more to come. I can't say I particularly welcome that prospect, given the mental torture in the run-up to the publication of these polls as those in the know drop hints, but it looks like we're all going to be put through that wringer one more time...
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Are the Greens determined to be so difficult to love?
What is it with the Scottish Greens of late? Like many nationalists, I feel they reflect my views more closely than any party other than the SNP itself. But they're becoming very, very hard to love. You might recall that a few weeks ago I took issue with James Mackenzie on Twitter after he said this -
"Shame on the @thesnp for putting Salmond on ballots he's not contesting."
That was, to put it mildly, a touch sanctimonious - he was criticising the SNP for 'misleading' the electorate, even though they were acting entirely within the rules to amplify the vital importance of the list vote, and even though the Greens themselves were about to embark once again on a grossly misleading '2nd Vote Green' campaign, designed (albeit deniably) to give the false impression that the all-important regional list ballot is some kind of second preference vote. When I tackled him on the latter issue, James fell back on a series of obviously well-rehearsed technical arguments, ie. it can be called the second vote because others have called it that, it must be the second vote because by the nature of the AMS system it has to be counted second, etc, etc.
Well, that would be fine - these are handy excuses for sacrificing clarity for voters in favour of a perfectly legitimate vote-maximising strategy. (Rod Crosby of Political Betting recently directly me to a piece of academic research that showed many people wrongly believed the 'second vote' label was indicative of a second preference vote, so there can be no real doubt that the Greens' sloganising fuels that confusion.) But the double-standard in doing that and at the same time going into apoplexy over the SNP using a legitimate description on the ballot paper designed to maximise their own vote is plain for all to see. Basically, James was on very, very weak ground, and that became increasingly obvious towards the end of the exchange as he tried to deflect attention from the central issue by asking why I was being so "confrontational" (opening by saying "shame on the SNP" isn't confrontational, James?) and then haughtily announcing that he was far too busy running an election campaign to worry himself with all this nonsense.
Anyway, a near carbon copy of that exchange occurred again today - the only difference this time being that James initiated it, before hurriedly realising yet again that a discussion in which he is unable to come up with credible answers to awkward questions is way beneath his dignity...
Me (speaking to one-man Scottish Labour Twitter presence Duncan Hothersall) : No, I'm asking you why Labour didn't legislate to stop it happening if they felt it was so 'wrong'?
James Mackenzie : Gould said names of candidates not standing in that region were misleading.
Me : You're on thin ground here, James, when your party has been peddling this misleading '2nd Vote Green' wheeze for weeks.
James Mackenzie : You do understand that's what your own Scottish Government calls it?
Me : Actually, I've heard the SNP refer to it as the first vote a few times. Which is handed over first?
James Mackenzie : Logically, you have to count constituencies first. That's AMS. So that's why SG, EC, UK Govt. etc all use that description.
Me : Is that an indication that the list vote is handed over first? I'm just wondering because you didn't answer the question.
James Mackenzie : There isn't an agreed order for polling place staff to hand over ballot papers as far as I know. Is that what you're asking?
Me : Yes it is.
James Mackenzie : I think they get handed all together. But it would indeed make sense to put the first vote first.
Me : By 'first' you mean constituency, ie. the less important one?
Me : So why call it '2nd vote' if there isn't an agreed order? Bit misleading, no?
James Mackenzie : We just covered that. The Scottish Government call it that because you logically count it second.
Me : I've already pointed out that the SNP have referred to it as a first vote. Logical, because it's the more important one.
James Mackenzie : I'm honestly not going to waste time debating this today. I'd take it up with the next Scottish Govt, whoever that may be.
Me : Shame on the Greens for running away from answering for their own misleading tactics...
Note - that parting shot was intended as a 'tribute tweet' in the style of James, before anyone accuses me of being "confrontational" again...
"Shame on the @thesnp for putting Salmond on ballots he's not contesting."
That was, to put it mildly, a touch sanctimonious - he was criticising the SNP for 'misleading' the electorate, even though they were acting entirely within the rules to amplify the vital importance of the list vote, and even though the Greens themselves were about to embark once again on a grossly misleading '2nd Vote Green' campaign, designed (albeit deniably) to give the false impression that the all-important regional list ballot is some kind of second preference vote. When I tackled him on the latter issue, James fell back on a series of obviously well-rehearsed technical arguments, ie. it can be called the second vote because others have called it that, it must be the second vote because by the nature of the AMS system it has to be counted second, etc, etc.
Well, that would be fine - these are handy excuses for sacrificing clarity for voters in favour of a perfectly legitimate vote-maximising strategy. (Rod Crosby of Political Betting recently directly me to a piece of academic research that showed many people wrongly believed the 'second vote' label was indicative of a second preference vote, so there can be no real doubt that the Greens' sloganising fuels that confusion.) But the double-standard in doing that and at the same time going into apoplexy over the SNP using a legitimate description on the ballot paper designed to maximise their own vote is plain for all to see. Basically, James was on very, very weak ground, and that became increasingly obvious towards the end of the exchange as he tried to deflect attention from the central issue by asking why I was being so "confrontational" (opening by saying "shame on the SNP" isn't confrontational, James?) and then haughtily announcing that he was far too busy running an election campaign to worry himself with all this nonsense.
Anyway, a near carbon copy of that exchange occurred again today - the only difference this time being that James initiated it, before hurriedly realising yet again that a discussion in which he is unable to come up with credible answers to awkward questions is way beneath his dignity...
Me (speaking to one-man Scottish Labour Twitter presence Duncan Hothersall) : No, I'm asking you why Labour didn't legislate to stop it happening if they felt it was so 'wrong'?
James Mackenzie : Gould said names of candidates not standing in that region were misleading.
Me : You're on thin ground here, James, when your party has been peddling this misleading '2nd Vote Green' wheeze for weeks.
James Mackenzie : You do understand that's what your own Scottish Government calls it?
Me : Actually, I've heard the SNP refer to it as the first vote a few times. Which is handed over first?
James Mackenzie : Logically, you have to count constituencies first. That's AMS. So that's why SG, EC, UK Govt. etc all use that description.
Me : Is that an indication that the list vote is handed over first? I'm just wondering because you didn't answer the question.
James Mackenzie : There isn't an agreed order for polling place staff to hand over ballot papers as far as I know. Is that what you're asking?
Me : Yes it is.
James Mackenzie : I think they get handed all together. But it would indeed make sense to put the first vote first.
Me : By 'first' you mean constituency, ie. the less important one?
Me : So why call it '2nd vote' if there isn't an agreed order? Bit misleading, no?
James Mackenzie : We just covered that. The Scottish Government call it that because you logically count it second.
Me : I've already pointed out that the SNP have referred to it as a first vote. Logical, because it's the more important one.
James Mackenzie : I'm honestly not going to waste time debating this today. I'd take it up with the next Scottish Govt, whoever that may be.
Me : Shame on the Greens for running away from answering for their own misleading tactics...
Note - that parting shot was intended as a 'tribute tweet' in the style of James, before anyone accuses me of being "confrontational" again...
Monday, May 2, 2011
Taggart actors are so easily distracted
What a peculiar hotch-potch of a Party Election Broadcast from Labour. It's as if they can't quite bring themselves to let go of their old (ie. pre-Easter Monday) campaign message of "now the Tories are back", but at the same time also want to cram in the 'new' message of "oooh, isn't independence scary?". What they ended up with was effectively "now the Tories are back at Westminster, isn't independence from Westminster scary?", which I'm not sure is going to entirely resonate.
Incidentally, I gather that the husky voice warning us that the SNP were being "distracted" by their "crazy obsession with independence" may well have belonged to none other than Taggart actor John Michie. Which is a tad ironic, given that the same Mr Michie found himself so distracted by his own crazy obsession with...er, Scottish independence, that he went on This Week just days before the 2007 Scottish Parliament election to tell Andrew Neil all about it. If memory serves me right, he felt that independence would unleash a "new entrepreneurial spirit" in Scotland.
Labour certainly know how to pick 'em.
Which brings me to Richard Wilson's monologue at the end. I trust this means we'll hear no more complaints from Labour about celebrity endorsements for the SNP from non-Scottish residents such as Sean Connery and Alan Cumming. After all, if we heed Wilson's advice and elect Iain "the Snarl" Gray as our national leader on Thursday, I somehow don't think the One Foot in the Grave star will be here to enjoy the 'benefits' personally. And if he says otherwise, I don't be-lieeeeeeve it.
Incidentally, I gather that the husky voice warning us that the SNP were being "distracted" by their "crazy obsession with independence" may well have belonged to none other than Taggart actor John Michie. Which is a tad ironic, given that the same Mr Michie found himself so distracted by his own crazy obsession with...er, Scottish independence, that he went on This Week just days before the 2007 Scottish Parliament election to tell Andrew Neil all about it. If memory serves me right, he felt that independence would unleash a "new entrepreneurial spirit" in Scotland.
Labour certainly know how to pick 'em.
Which brings me to Richard Wilson's monologue at the end. I trust this means we'll hear no more complaints from Labour about celebrity endorsements for the SNP from non-Scottish residents such as Sean Connery and Alan Cumming. After all, if we heed Wilson's advice and elect Iain "the Snarl" Gray as our national leader on Thursday, I somehow don't think the One Foot in the Grave star will be here to enjoy the 'benefits' personally. And if he says otherwise, I don't be-lieeeeeeve it.
When will Gray be forced to simply admit : "I disagree with Wendy"?
I don't have a huge amount to say about tonight's BBC leaders' debate, which unfolded pretty much as anticipated. Gray didn't quite live down to his snarling, finger-jabbing worst, but if anything Salmond was also better than before, so the gap between the two remained intact. I can give Tavish Scott some credit this time for finally dispensing with his 'have his cake and eat it' approach to whether or not he wants to be associated with Clegg and the London government, although I have a feeling he might still have lapsed back into it if he'd been pressed. There was, however, an unfortunate repeat of his indignant "this is so unfair" moment from a previous debate when Salmond suggested that the unionist parties talk Scotland down. I'd have thought that charge was fairly unanswerable - after all, we've heard within the last week from Ed Balls that an independent Scotland is a "crackers" idea that would lead to "catastrophe". No-one can pretend that's an insult to the SNP as a party - it's a straightforward denial of this country's capacity to govern itself competently under any leadership.
Although I was glad that Glenn Campbell prodded Gray on Labour's recent inconsistency on an independence referendum, I still long for the day that an interviewer properly nails the Labour leader on his absurd insistence that his current stance on the issue is in some way perfectly reconcilable with Wendy Alexander's. Yes, Wendy said she wasn't signing a blank cheque on the wording of the question, and yes, she said she preferred an early referendum to a later one - but the bottom line is that she clearly indicated that a referendum wouldn't be blocked, even if it occurred as late as 2010. Gray straightforwardly, unambiguously reversed that policy upon becoming leader, and it's staggering that he's repeatedly been allowed to get away with the fiction that he didn't.
Here's how I rated the performances this evening -
Alex Salmond 9/10
Annabel Goldie 7/10
Iain Gray 6/10
Tavish Scott 6/10
Although I was glad that Glenn Campbell prodded Gray on Labour's recent inconsistency on an independence referendum, I still long for the day that an interviewer properly nails the Labour leader on his absurd insistence that his current stance on the issue is in some way perfectly reconcilable with Wendy Alexander's. Yes, Wendy said she wasn't signing a blank cheque on the wording of the question, and yes, she said she preferred an early referendum to a later one - but the bottom line is that she clearly indicated that a referendum wouldn't be blocked, even if it occurred as late as 2010. Gray straightforwardly, unambiguously reversed that policy upon becoming leader, and it's staggering that he's repeatedly been allowed to get away with the fiction that he didn't.
Here's how I rated the performances this evening -
Alex Salmond 9/10
Annabel Goldie 7/10
Iain Gray 6/10
Tavish Scott 6/10
Sunday, May 1, 2011
YouGov poll : SNP retain clear lead - but a timely reminder for party supporters not to muck about on the list vote
The last of the weekly campaign polls for Scotland on Sunday continues to show a very healthy lead for the SNP on the constituency ballot, but the race appears to have significantly tightened on the all-important list ballot. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote :
SNP 42% (-3)
Labour 34% (+2)
Conservatives 12% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 35% (-4)
Labour 33% (+4)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 7% (-)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-1)
If I was going to put a maximally pessimistic spin on these figures I would say two things. Firstly, the bulk of the fieldwork for the poll will have been carried out before the Royal Wedding ceremony - which may have had no effect on voting intention whatsoever, but if by any chance there was one, it's unlikely to be favourable for the SNP. Secondly, YouGov's eve-of-election poll in 2007 overstated the SNP's lead by five points on the constituency vote, and by two points on the list. The latter point in particular is an important reminder of just how close this election might yet prove to be - and in similar circumstances last time round the SNP were reliant on votes on the regional list in all eight regions to secure a one-seat victory. I hope that will give any party supporters pondering the dangerous game of 'tactical voting' on the list ballot serious pause for thought.
There is also a positive spin available, of course - compared to where we were just a few short weeks ago, this is an impossibly wonderful poll for the SNP!
UPDATE : I've finally tracked down the full figures from last night's other poll by Progressive Scottish Opinion, which unlike YouGov shows a positive direction of travel for the SNP on the list vote...
Constituency vote :
SNP 45% (-1)
Labour 35% (-1)
Conservatives 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 41% (+3)
Labour 36% (-1)
Conservatives 8% (-2)
Greens 6% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-4)
The same two snags that I mentioned last week apply again, though - a) PSO don't have that great a track record, and b) the fieldwork is unlikely to have been as recent as the YouGov poll. I don't have the dates, although a regular poster on Political Betting suggested it finished on the 27th, which if true would at least make it a bit more up-to-date than last week's.
Constituency vote :
SNP 42% (-3)
Labour 34% (+2)
Conservatives 12% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 35% (-4)
Labour 33% (+4)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 7% (-)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-1)
If I was going to put a maximally pessimistic spin on these figures I would say two things. Firstly, the bulk of the fieldwork for the poll will have been carried out before the Royal Wedding ceremony - which may have had no effect on voting intention whatsoever, but if by any chance there was one, it's unlikely to be favourable for the SNP. Secondly, YouGov's eve-of-election poll in 2007 overstated the SNP's lead by five points on the constituency vote, and by two points on the list. The latter point in particular is an important reminder of just how close this election might yet prove to be - and in similar circumstances last time round the SNP were reliant on votes on the regional list in all eight regions to secure a one-seat victory. I hope that will give any party supporters pondering the dangerous game of 'tactical voting' on the list ballot serious pause for thought.
There is also a positive spin available, of course - compared to where we were just a few short weeks ago, this is an impossibly wonderful poll for the SNP!
UPDATE : I've finally tracked down the full figures from last night's other poll by Progressive Scottish Opinion, which unlike YouGov shows a positive direction of travel for the SNP on the list vote...
Constituency vote :
SNP 45% (-1)
Labour 35% (-1)
Conservatives 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 41% (+3)
Labour 36% (-1)
Conservatives 8% (-2)
Greens 6% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-4)
The same two snags that I mentioned last week apply again, though - a) PSO don't have that great a track record, and b) the fieldwork is unlikely to have been as recent as the YouGov poll. I don't have the dates, although a regular poster on Political Betting suggested it finished on the 27th, which if true would at least make it a bit more up-to-date than last week's.
Friday, April 29, 2011
I can't tell you what I thought of the Royal Wedding because...
...I somehow contrived to get myself stranded on the Isle of Arran last night, and missed the whole thing as a result! I can't say I'm overly sorry about that side of things, but the mishap cost me £60 in B&B accommodation and transport home. I had very 'cleverly' bought a day return Rail & Sail combined ticket - but of course that just ended up costing me money, because it was invalid by the time I was able to travel back. I don't think I've ever asked for a refund on an unused return rail ticket before in my life, and I've no idea if it's even possible to do so in these circumstances, but I'm just about sufficiently annoyed with myself to risk the inevitable "are you mad" look. Apart from anything else, I'm an on/off Doctor Who fan, and the closing lines of Terror of the Zygons keep coming back to me...
Did they have return tickets?
Yes, I believe so.
You should have taken them in and got your refund, man. I thought you were a Scotsman.
You'll be relieved to hear that, while I missed the Royal Wedding, I was still able to watch John McTernan on Newsnight Scotland last night from the comfort of my B&B room. That lifted my morale no end.
Did they have return tickets?
Yes, I believe so.
You should have taken them in and got your refund, man. I thought you were a Scotsman.
You'll be relieved to hear that, while I missed the Royal Wedding, I was still able to watch John McTernan on Newsnight Scotland last night from the comfort of my B&B room. That lifted my morale no end.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Labour become the nasty party again
Scottish Labour's very own Prince of Darkness John McTernan informs us in the Scotsman today that fear always beats hope in political campaigning, and it looks like his party have decided to put that theory to the test over the remaining few days of the election campaign. I've just received a delightful leaflet inviting me to draw the following contrast -
"Knife crime wrecking lives under SNP
Carry a knife - go to jail with Labour"
On the flip-side of the leaflet I'm introduced to the "McKennas", a 'typical, hard-working, Labour-voting family' (they look a remarkably smug bunch, it has to be said). The McKennas apparently worry themselves to sleep every night about the bloody SNP being soft on crime. "Bernadine" McKenna warms to the theme in the following monologue...
"The problem is getting worse. I'm backing Labour's policy of 'carry a knife, go to jail'. There's no excuse to carry a lethal blade but folk know they'll get away with it. I worry about what could happen to our family."
I'm worried about what might happen to your family too, "Bernadine". I'm desperately concerned about what might become of your fine daughter "Sarah" McKenna if she pops round to lend her Auntie Joanna a kitchen knife in future - under Labour it'll be straight to Cornton Vale for that young lady. No excuses, you knife-wielding scum!
But it seems "Frank" McKenna is in full agreement with his wife -
"[The SNP] are wrong not to back this tough approach. Now the Tories are back, we need Labour to focus on the things that really matter, like keeping our streets safe."
Do you know what...those words are reminding me of something. Isn't that remarkably similar to what John Park is quoted as saying every single day in the press? In fact, doesn't some of it appear word-for-word in Labour's manifesto? Crikey. Take a well-earned bow, "Frank" McKenna - you're the co-author of Labour's manifesto! You've devised some of the party's best-loved catchphrases from this campaign! When oh when is this man and his camera-friendly chin going to get the credit they deserve?
I do have a small quibble, though, "Frank". The general rule of thumb for political rhetoric is that you can tell how vacuous it is simply by reversing it and seeing if it still makes sense. Your statement reversed reads as follows -
"When the Tories weren't in power in London, we didn't need Labour to focus on the things that really mattered. It was OK if our streets weren't safe."
So that's what you have to believe if you buy into Labour's "now the Tories are back" drivel.
And what's this? "Bernadine" and the magnificently-chinned "Frank" have both had their say, but nothing from "Sarah" McKenna? Are teenagers meant to be seen and not heard under Labour?
"Knife crime wrecking lives under SNP
Carry a knife - go to jail with Labour"
On the flip-side of the leaflet I'm introduced to the "McKennas", a 'typical, hard-working, Labour-voting family' (they look a remarkably smug bunch, it has to be said). The McKennas apparently worry themselves to sleep every night about the bloody SNP being soft on crime. "Bernadine" McKenna warms to the theme in the following monologue...
"The problem is getting worse. I'm backing Labour's policy of 'carry a knife, go to jail'. There's no excuse to carry a lethal blade but folk know they'll get away with it. I worry about what could happen to our family."
I'm worried about what might happen to your family too, "Bernadine". I'm desperately concerned about what might become of your fine daughter "Sarah" McKenna if she pops round to lend her Auntie Joanna a kitchen knife in future - under Labour it'll be straight to Cornton Vale for that young lady. No excuses, you knife-wielding scum!
But it seems "Frank" McKenna is in full agreement with his wife -
"[The SNP] are wrong not to back this tough approach. Now the Tories are back, we need Labour to focus on the things that really matter, like keeping our streets safe."
Do you know what...those words are reminding me of something. Isn't that remarkably similar to what John Park is quoted as saying every single day in the press? In fact, doesn't some of it appear word-for-word in Labour's manifesto? Crikey. Take a well-earned bow, "Frank" McKenna - you're the co-author of Labour's manifesto! You've devised some of the party's best-loved catchphrases from this campaign! When oh when is this man and his camera-friendly chin going to get the credit they deserve?
I do have a small quibble, though, "Frank". The general rule of thumb for political rhetoric is that you can tell how vacuous it is simply by reversing it and seeing if it still makes sense. Your statement reversed reads as follows -
"When the Tories weren't in power in London, we didn't need Labour to focus on the things that really mattered. It was OK if our streets weren't safe."
So that's what you have to believe if you buy into Labour's "now the Tories are back" drivel.
And what's this? "Bernadine" and the magnificently-chinned "Frank" have both had their say, but nothing from "Sarah" McKenna? Are teenagers meant to be seen and not heard under Labour?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Ed Balls : Don't stop eating the sweets, or you might feel sick
From the Herald -
"Mr Balls, visiting a car dealership in the city, attacked Mr Salmond's calls for fiscal autonomy in Scotland. He said: "Does he still think that Scottish financial regulation should be separate from the UK even after what happened to RBS? It's completely barmy.""
I'm trying desperately hard to follow your logic, Ed, honest I am. The catastrophe that befell RBS happened under the UK regulatory framework - and that's somehow supposed to prove that not remaining within that framework would be "barmy"?
Perhaps it's time to give one of Mr. Kevin Baker's tedious catchphrases an appropriate outing for the first time in its long history. What do you do when an approach has clearly failed, according to Ed Balls? You do it again, only HARDER!!!!
I'm also more than a touch confused by Balls' line of attack on the currency that might be used in an independent Scotland. He claims that taking Scotland into the euro would be "crackers", but also thinks that Scotland having its own exchange rate would be "madness". Is anyone else spotting the slight contradiction here? It's as if he memorised a list of synonyms for the word 'crazy', and was determined to use every last one of them, regardless of the suggestion actually put to him. "Would you like the curtains closed, Mr Balls?" "Closed curtains? That's bonkers." "Open, then, Mr Balls?" "Open? You're a fruitcake."
"Mr Balls, visiting a car dealership in the city, attacked Mr Salmond's calls for fiscal autonomy in Scotland. He said: "Does he still think that Scottish financial regulation should be separate from the UK even after what happened to RBS? It's completely barmy.""
I'm trying desperately hard to follow your logic, Ed, honest I am. The catastrophe that befell RBS happened under the UK regulatory framework - and that's somehow supposed to prove that not remaining within that framework would be "barmy"?
Perhaps it's time to give one of Mr. Kevin Baker's tedious catchphrases an appropriate outing for the first time in its long history. What do you do when an approach has clearly failed, according to Ed Balls? You do it again, only HARDER!!!!
I'm also more than a touch confused by Balls' line of attack on the currency that might be used in an independent Scotland. He claims that taking Scotland into the euro would be "crackers", but also thinks that Scotland having its own exchange rate would be "madness". Is anyone else spotting the slight contradiction here? It's as if he memorised a list of synonyms for the word 'crazy', and was determined to use every last one of them, regardless of the suggestion actually put to him. "Would you like the curtains closed, Mr Balls?" "Closed curtains? That's bonkers." "Open, then, Mr Balls?" "Open? You're a fruitcake."
Monday, April 25, 2011
I agree with Nick (first time in a year) : Salmond should be involved in 'national' TV leaders' debates
From the Independent on Sunday :
"After emerging victorious from the TV debates last year, Clegg has been imagining a leaders' broadcast on the referendum. "So, on one side of the stage, pro-AV, you'd have me, Ed Miliband, (Green) Caroline Lucas, (Ukip) Nigel Farage, (SNP) Alex Salmond and (Plaid Cymru) Ieuan Wyn Jones.""
Not to worry that it hasn't come to pass this time, Nick - we'll be on hand to remind you of your very fair-minded suggestion for a leaders' debate line-up when the next Westminster general election comes round...
"After emerging victorious from the TV debates last year, Clegg has been imagining a leaders' broadcast on the referendum. "So, on one side of the stage, pro-AV, you'd have me, Ed Miliband, (Green) Caroline Lucas, (Ukip) Nigel Farage, (SNP) Alex Salmond and (Plaid Cymru) Ieuan Wyn Jones.""
Not to worry that it hasn't come to pass this time, Nick - we'll be on hand to remind you of your very fair-minded suggestion for a leaders' debate line-up when the next Westminster general election comes round...
Sunday, April 24, 2011
YouGov poll shows commanding lead for the SNP
Just for the moment, we seem to have moved firmly into 'pinch me' territory. A second Saturday evening in a row has brought a dramatic advance for the SNP in the latest YouGov poll...
Constituency vote :
SNP 45% (+5)
Labour 32% (-5)
Conservatives 10% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 39% (+4)
Labour 29% (-4)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-)
Greens 7% (+1)
Incidentally, these figures don't necessarily disprove the theory that the Ipsos-Mori poll a few days ago was overstating the SNP, because a hugely significant event occurred between the sampling for that survey and this one - the Sun's endorsement of the Nationalists. Like Ipsos-Mori, the projected seat totals from this poll would just about give the parties in favour of an independence referendum an outright majority between them. This is also the first poll for which the fieldwork was carried out after a large number of postal votes had already been cast, suggesting that a certain percentage of damage for Labour may already have been done.
There is also a new Progressive Scottish Opinion poll out -
Constituency vote :
SNP 46% (+9)
Labour 36% (-7)
Conservatives 9% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 38% (+1)
Labour 37% (-7)
Conservatives 10% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 9% (+5)
Greens 5% (+3)
These figures don't tell us quite so much, partly because PSO don't have a great track record, and partly because the fieldwork dates largely overlap with last week's YouGov poll, and also with the Ipsos-Mori poll. But for what it's worth, it is a further piece of evidence that the SNP were in the lead as of last weekend.
Constituency vote :
SNP 45% (+5)
Labour 32% (-5)
Conservatives 10% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 39% (+4)
Labour 29% (-4)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-)
Greens 7% (+1)
Incidentally, these figures don't necessarily disprove the theory that the Ipsos-Mori poll a few days ago was overstating the SNP, because a hugely significant event occurred between the sampling for that survey and this one - the Sun's endorsement of the Nationalists. Like Ipsos-Mori, the projected seat totals from this poll would just about give the parties in favour of an independence referendum an outright majority between them. This is also the first poll for which the fieldwork was carried out after a large number of postal votes had already been cast, suggesting that a certain percentage of damage for Labour may already have been done.
There is also a new Progressive Scottish Opinion poll out -
Constituency vote :
SNP 46% (+9)
Labour 36% (-7)
Conservatives 9% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 38% (+1)
Labour 37% (-7)
Conservatives 10% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 9% (+5)
Greens 5% (+3)
These figures don't tell us quite so much, partly because PSO don't have a great track record, and partly because the fieldwork dates largely overlap with last week's YouGov poll, and also with the Ipsos-Mori poll. But for what it's worth, it is a further piece of evidence that the SNP were in the lead as of last weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)