Populus subsample : SNP close gap to just three points

A second Scottish subsample in the space of two days has put the SNP well into the thirties - but unlike Angus Reid yesterday, Populus suggests that the party has practically wiped out Labour's big lead from last month. Here are the full figures -

Labour 37% (-7)
SNP 34% (+8)
Conservatives 13% (-5)
Liberal Democrats 12% (+5)
Others 4% (-2)

The SNP's showing is even more encouraging when you bear in mind that it takes place in the context of the best UK-wide poll for Labour in some twelve months. And - it almost goes without saying - this is another terrible subsample for the Scottish Conservatives.

Calling all believers in rational climate science...

Since the blogger 'Plato Says' (now a favourite at the court of James, the Great Pretender - Delingpole, that is) is urging her readers to email their 'spontaneous' thoughts on "climategate" (yawn) to the Met Office's Chief Scientist, I thought I might try to balance things up slightly by also providing Julia Slingo's email address here.

julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk

I'm guessing the readers of a left-of-centre, pro-SNP blog might be slightly more persuaded by rational climate science than Plato's audience, so feel free to take her advice and tell Ms Sligo exactly what you think. Perhaps something along the lines of Michael Mates' legendary parting words to Asil Nadir might be in order - "don't let the b*****s get you down..."

And yes, this is, as you may have deduced, a shameless (if nominal) act of retribution on my part against the said Ms Plato, who launched into a bizarre unprovoked personal attack on me yesterday afternoon at PoliticalBetting.com, before in her trademark fashion reverting instantly to passive-aggressive mode. Perhaps being accused of lacking a sense of humour ought to be water off a duck's back, but in this case it's a touch galling a) because it comes from someone who evidently thinks of herself as a great wit on the basis of no discernible evidence whatsoever (yes, the similarities to Mr. James 'How to Be Right' Delingpole himself are indeed striking), and b) because as any long-term readers of this blog will know, while I admittedly lack the capacity for brilliant one-liners, I do regularly indulge myself in the whimsical and the ridiculous. (And if AM2 feels his ears burning, it's just a coincidence.) Indeed, if anything, I've probably indulged that habit much more often over on the pages of PB.com than I have here. Having thought about it yesterday, I think the example I'm most proud of is this one from just over a year ago, in response to an exhaustive list of occasionally mis-spelt Labour "achievements in office" -

"'Develotion' - that sounds like what Peter Andre would come up with if he put the words ‘devolution’ and ‘devotion’ together for a song title.
'Scraping hereditary peers in the House of Lords' - Sounds painful but it's all they deserved. I imagine William Hague had a ringside seat when it was Lord Cranborne's turn to be scraped."

So why have my best efforts apparently gone so shamefully unnoticed all this time? My guess is that posters on the now rabidly Tory-dominated PB.com (it wasn't always thus) have truly come to believe that the term 'sense of humour' is indistinguishable in meaning from the finding of ever-more-inventive ways of pointing out that Gordon Brown 'is a retard' and only has sight in one eye. We've heard a lot about the 'Cybernat' problem recently - but if we were to put together a "Comedy of PB.com - Classic Jokes from the CyberTories" compilation...well, what can I say. In the immortal words of Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder, "if I appear not to be laughing, it's only because I fear my sides would split".

The most generous thing I can say is that it might turn out to be rather reminiscent of Peter Serafinowicz's 'James Bond - Licence to Tell Jokes' DVD.

Angus Reid : SNP soar to 33%

After three successive Scottish subsamples from the new series of UK-wide Angus Reid polls that showed remarkable consistency, the fourth has produced completely different - and in some respects frankly implausible - figures. The Liberal Democrats have slumped nine points to a totally unrealistic 7%. An additional significant fall for the Tories opens the way for a dramatic increase in support for both Labour and the SNP, although with the gap between the two parties staying virtually unchanged from last time. Here are the full figures -

Labour 42% (+9)
SNP 33% (+8)
Conservatives 14% (-4)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-9)
Others 4% (-4)

Although the figures have to be taken with a huge dose of salt, the fact that this fits into a pattern of recent dismal showings for the Scottish Tories cannot be ignored. At this stage, it really does look like the next party of government could have a sub-20% mandate from Scots.

SNP up with ICM, but down with YouGov

The detailed figures from Saturday evening's two UK-wide polls have been released, and once again there are mixed fortunes for the SNP. The YouGov Scottish subsample curiously shows a decline of support for Labour, the SNP and the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats enjoying a six-point jump. Here are the full figures -

Labour 34% (-2)
SNP 22% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 19% (+6)
Conservatives 19% (-3)
Others 5% (+1)

The raw 22% share is clearly disappointing for the SNP, although the overall Labour lead is once again notably more modest than the most recent full-scale YouGov poll indicated. After the previous YouGov subsample had offered a rare glimmer of hope to the Scottish Tories, they once again return to a more familiar sub-20 rating.

ICM do not provide a specific Scottish breakdown, instead lumping the country together with northern England. Here are the latest subsample figures for that highly artificial 'region' -

Labour 38% (-1)
Conservatives 27% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 16% (-2)
SNP 10% (+1)
Others 10% (+4)

This is much better news for the SNP, with 10% being at the upper end of their normal range of support in the ICM 'northern region'.

The remaining question

Well, perhaps I'll indulge in one more brief return to Chekov-watch, since the 'Three Thousand Versts' blogger has returned to the issue of Scottish nationalism. He, refreshingly, does not dismiss the idea of letting the Scottish people decide their own future out of hand, but rehearses the usual spurious objections about timing, 'rigged questions', etc. Once again, is it too much to point out that complaining about the principle of a multi-option referendum is a touch peculiar given that a single-option referendum is the SNP's clearly stated preference, and the multi-option vote is merely a proposed compromise?

Chekov's own suggestion for a 'clear, unambiguous, definitive' question is "Do you wish Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom?". This is at least an improvement on the standard proposal for a 'neutral' question from the likes of Alan Cochrane, ie. "Do you think Scotland should become completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?". But I think Chekov really needs to explain why the simple question "do you think Scotland should become an independent country?" is any less 'clear, unambiguous or definitive' than his own suggestion. The idea that anyone does not realise that independence would entail leaving the UK is risible - and if anyone is going to argue that case, I could just as easily make the point that Chekov's question is absolutely not unambiguous, because 'leaving the UK' could in the literal sense imply joining another country (Norway for instance?) every bit as much as it could imply becoming an independent state.

Final thought - what does it say about a self-styled 'liberal unionist' when he finds himself in so much agreement with Alan Cochrane? Cochrane is a unionist, certainly...

Ipsos-Mori sensation : SNP lead Labour in Westminster voting intentions

On this blog I normally focus only on the Scottish subsamples of UK-wide polls, because the relatively rare full-scale Scottish polls are widely covered elsewhere. But the results of this particular full poll from Ipsos-Mori deserve to be shouted from the rooftops by everyone sympathetic to the SNP, because it blows the prevailing media narrative of recent days and weeks utterly out of the water. The SNP's hopes of even modest gains at the general election were, we were told, fading fast. But here we have a poll that not only shows a decent SNP lead in Holyrood voting intention (which will ease the jitters caused by the two recent YouGov polls), but also - remarkably - shows the party retaining a slender lead over Labour for Westminster. Here are the full figures -

Westminster

SNP 34% (+1)
Labour 32% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 12% (-2)
Others 6% (-2)

Holyrood (constituency ballot)

SNP 36% (-2)
Labour 32% (+7)
Liberal Democrats 12% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-3)
Others 8% (+1)

There do not appear to be any voting intention figures for the Holyrood list vote. The fieldwork concluded just over a week ago, which crucially places it well after Glasgow NE.

Mixed fortunes for SNP in new polling subsamples

Two new Scottish subsamples of UK-wide opinion polls were revealed yesterday. The detailed figures from the YouGov poll published on Friday night indicate that Labour have reopened a decent gap on the SNP, having previously seen their lead shrink to just one point. (However, the Labour lead is still a little smaller than that implied by the recent full-scale Scottish poll conducted by YouGov.) But, by contrast, in the new ComRes subsample, the SNP have actually retaken the lead. Here are the full figures from both polls -

YouGov

Labour 36% (+6)
SNP 25% (-4)
Conservatives 22% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 13% (-4)
Others 4% (-)

ComRes

SNP 30% (+5)
Labour 28% (-12)
Liberal Democrats 17% (+8)
Conservatives 17% (-4)
Others 6% (+2)

The YouGov figures are notable for being the first subsample in several weeks to record a decent showing for the Scottish Tories - but in ComRes the party continues to flatline.

Massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction related programme activities

A rare treat to see Melanie "Wrong But With Conviction" Phillips give this old classic a spin on Question Time last night. It received its first outing way back in President Bush's first State of the Union address to Congress after the Iraq invasion. Just for a few seconds he appeared to have a huge revelation up his sleeve that was about to turn the media narrative completely on its head - "already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction..." Really? No, not really. Sadly for Bush, he hadn't finished his sentence, with the remaining words being "related programme activities". Which begged the obvious question - what exactly is a weapon of mass destruction related programme activity, and how precisely does it differ from an actual weapon?

Angus Reid points to eight-point Labour lead over SNP

The third in the new series of UK-wide polls conducted by the Canadian firm Angus Reid Strategies for PoliticalBetting.com continues to show remarkable stability in its Scottish subsample. Labour has extended its lead over the SNP from five to eight points, although that still falls well short of the fifteen-point Labour lead for Westminster seen in yesterday's full-scale Scottish poll for the Telegraph. Here are the full figures -

Labour 33% (+1)
SNP 25% (-2)
Conservatives 18% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 16% (+5)
Others 8% (-)

On one point these figures are in absolute agreement with the Telegraph poll - in placing the Conservatives on a dismal 18%. The spectre of a majority Conservative government taking power with perhaps as few as one or two seats in Scotland - which many people in their heart of hearts thought was impossible - appears to be moving a little closer with every passing week.

Memo to Lib Dems - don't be the change, make the change

Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com is a Liberal Democrat, albeit one who's never been (to put it mildly) slavishly loyal to the leadership, so his views on developments within his own party are always particularly interesting to read. One point that he's made repeatedly over recent months, and returned to in his latest post, is that it would be logically inconsistent for a party that believes in proportional representation to consider doing a deal with a party that has won the most seats in an election, despite having been defeated in the popular vote. (The speculation is that Labour could conceivably find itself in such a situation shortly, if the latest Ipsos-Mori poll is not a blip.)

I have to say that strikes me as an astonishingly misguided interpretation on more than one count. Firstly, I'm wondering if Mike has fully taken on board what PR actually means in practice. As a Lib Dem it would seem odd if he hasn't, but my vague impression is that his own allegiance to the party has little to do with any great interest in electoral reform. Internationally, PR systems quite routinely result in coalitions that exclude the party that has won the most seats, let alone the most votes. So, even if they wanted to be seen to be adhering to "best PR practice", there would be nothing hypocritical about the Liberal Democrats keeping all options open.

But the more salient point surely is that the job of a party that believes in PR is not to eccentrically go around acting as if PR is already in operation when it isn't (is Mike saying to the Lib Dems in Ghandian terms "you must be the change you want to see"?), but instead to take every opportunity to actually bring PR about. That might well involve a deal with a Labour party that had lost the popular vote, because the chances of the Tories making the slightest concession on electoral reform in the next parliament are literally nil. If the current generation of Lib Dems turn down a golden opportunity to finally bring about a fair voting system, and indeed to hold a share of power on a regular basis from that point on, how on earth will they justify it to their successors twenty years from now? "We had to turn down proportional representation, because it was far more important for us to act proportionately". Yes, that'll sound good. It's the philosophy of a pious, self-denying, proportionality-worshipping monk, not of a serious political party.

In truth, if Labour are the largest single party in the next parliament without the mandate of the popular vote, that situation will have been directly brought about by politicians - to a large extent Tory politicians - who have stubbornly insisted on maintaining the rotten first-past-the-post electoral system all of these last few decades. It's not the responsibility of the Liberal Democrats (or of the SNP and Plaid Cymru for that matter) to artificially create a lead in seats for the Tories, when the very electoral system the Tories are determined to uphold has failed to deliver that lead for them. Mike Smithson is putting the onus on the wrong players - if the Conservatives think the electoral system has thrown up a result that does not accurately reflect the popular will, it's up to them to accept changes to that system. Otherwise, they ought in conscience to be prepared to just lump it.