I've been meaning to post this for a few days, and with kick-off only hours away it's probably now or never! Here is my annual Six Nations prediction (which I only ever get round to doing because my sister always presents me with a prediction form for her work)...
Weekend 1
Wales to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Scotland by 10-19 points
France to beat Italy by 10-19 points
Weekend 2
Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10 points
France to beat Wales by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat England by less than 10 points
Weekend 3
Wales to beat Italy by 10-19 points
England to beat France by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat Scotland by less than 10 points
Weekend 4
Wales to beat Scotland by less than 10 points
France to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Italy by 20+ points
Weekend 5
Ireland to beat Italy by 10-19 points
Wales to beat England by less than 10 points
France to beat Scotland by 10-19 points
As ever, I feel I've been far too optimistic in awarding Scotland even one narrow win (and Scott Johnson scares the living daylights out of me). Elsewhere, I've been guided by the fact that Ireland have a much better home record against England than against France. Here is how the final table would look -
France - 4 Wins
Wales - 4 Wins
England - 3 Wins
Ireland - 3 Wins
Scotland - 1 Win
Italy - 0 Wins
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
What's in a question?
It's not often that I spontaneously burst out laughing when I'm travelling alone on a bus, but that's what happened yesterday when I was browsing the internet on my mobile phone, and came across the following sentence on a major media website -
"The Scottish Government agrees to change the independence referendum question, after fears that it might lead people to vote Yes."
Quite right too. Heaven forbid that people should do anything other than vote No!
I was intrigued to see the reasoning in the Electoral Commission's report, and I must say I'm not entirely reassured. In fact, I'm seething with anger on one particular point -
"There is a risk that the Scottish Government will not accept our assessment of the question and will not amend the question that it includes in the Referendum Bill. Not accepting our advice will cause controversy in the public domain...
We anticipate a high media profile and will have a suitable handling plan in place."
Did that "handling plan" include leaking in advance to the unionist press in London? Call me cynical, but I suspect it might have done somehow. Frankly, a body like the Electoral Commission shouldn't even be thinking in terms of "risk" when considering the possibility that the government might reject its advice. That's not a risk, it's a natural part of the process when you have only an advisory role, and you certainly have no business setting up "handling plans" in an attempt to head off that "risk".
In broader terms, I'm at least partly reassured that the EC didn't do what I strongly suspected they might have done, ie. 'tested' the proposed question by asking people to answer it, compared the results to two or three more unionist-oriented questions, and then plumped for the one that conveniently produced the most 'middling outcome'. However, I'm a bit startled by what they seem to have done instead, which was basically to ask people if the proposed question seemed a bit biased to them, and then take those answers at face value. Were those responses spontaneous, or were they influenced by the concerted and high-profile unionist campaign to brand the question as biased? We'll never know, but the risk that it was the latter is obvious, and that means this process cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory.
I had naively thought that 'testing' might involve a more sophisticated approach of posing the proposed referendum question, and then asking people for the reasoning behind their answer, to see if any confusion or misdirection was evident. Instead the EC seems to have set the general public up as the experts on polling psychology, which is a bit peculiar to say the least. One question that sprung to my mind is this - were the people who claimed the proposed question was leading more likely to be Yes voters or No voters? From the vague language used in the report, the answer appears (unsurprisingly) to be that they were more likely to be No voters, and yet as far as I can see no breakdown is provided for those figures. That doesn't strike me as being good enough.
I partly agree with Marcia that the referendum question will be irrelevant, because by the time of the ballot people will be well aware of what they are voting on, and won't pay much attention to the exact wording when they enter the polling booth. But where it might make a difference is on the psychology of the campaign, which will be driven by the results of opinion polls. Respondents to those polls may not have such well-developed views, and may therefore be more susceptible to influence from a unionist-flavoured question. However, in all honesty the new question is so similar to the old one that any impact on the polls is likely to be minimal.
By the way, now that there is no doubt whatever on the wording of the question, can we expect Peter Kellner and YouGov to use it for their polls - plain, simple and unadorned? I suspect that may be too much to ask, but hope springs eternal.
(Note : I dearly wanted to call this post "That's a great question, Mr. Chairman" as a tribute to James Murdoch, but it probably would have been a bit too obscure.)
"The Scottish Government agrees to change the independence referendum question, after fears that it might lead people to vote Yes."
Quite right too. Heaven forbid that people should do anything other than vote No!
I was intrigued to see the reasoning in the Electoral Commission's report, and I must say I'm not entirely reassured. In fact, I'm seething with anger on one particular point -
"There is a risk that the Scottish Government will not accept our assessment of the question and will not amend the question that it includes in the Referendum Bill. Not accepting our advice will cause controversy in the public domain...
We anticipate a high media profile and will have a suitable handling plan in place."
Did that "handling plan" include leaking in advance to the unionist press in London? Call me cynical, but I suspect it might have done somehow. Frankly, a body like the Electoral Commission shouldn't even be thinking in terms of "risk" when considering the possibility that the government might reject its advice. That's not a risk, it's a natural part of the process when you have only an advisory role, and you certainly have no business setting up "handling plans" in an attempt to head off that "risk".
In broader terms, I'm at least partly reassured that the EC didn't do what I strongly suspected they might have done, ie. 'tested' the proposed question by asking people to answer it, compared the results to two or three more unionist-oriented questions, and then plumped for the one that conveniently produced the most 'middling outcome'. However, I'm a bit startled by what they seem to have done instead, which was basically to ask people if the proposed question seemed a bit biased to them, and then take those answers at face value. Were those responses spontaneous, or were they influenced by the concerted and high-profile unionist campaign to brand the question as biased? We'll never know, but the risk that it was the latter is obvious, and that means this process cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory.
I had naively thought that 'testing' might involve a more sophisticated approach of posing the proposed referendum question, and then asking people for the reasoning behind their answer, to see if any confusion or misdirection was evident. Instead the EC seems to have set the general public up as the experts on polling psychology, which is a bit peculiar to say the least. One question that sprung to my mind is this - were the people who claimed the proposed question was leading more likely to be Yes voters or No voters? From the vague language used in the report, the answer appears (unsurprisingly) to be that they were more likely to be No voters, and yet as far as I can see no breakdown is provided for those figures. That doesn't strike me as being good enough.
I partly agree with Marcia that the referendum question will be irrelevant, because by the time of the ballot people will be well aware of what they are voting on, and won't pay much attention to the exact wording when they enter the polling booth. But where it might make a difference is on the psychology of the campaign, which will be driven by the results of opinion polls. Respondents to those polls may not have such well-developed views, and may therefore be more susceptible to influence from a unionist-flavoured question. However, in all honesty the new question is so similar to the old one that any impact on the polls is likely to be minimal.
By the way, now that there is no doubt whatever on the wording of the question, can we expect Peter Kellner and YouGov to use it for their polls - plain, simple and unadorned? I suspect that may be too much to ask, but hope springs eternal.
(Note : I dearly wanted to call this post "That's a great question, Mr. Chairman" as a tribute to James Murdoch, but it probably would have been a bit too obscure.)
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Angus Reid subsample : SNP retake the lead in Westminster voting intention
A very quick post because I'm in a mad rush. Here are the latest Scottish figures for Westminster voting intention from Angus Reid -
SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 35% (-1)
Conservatives 18% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
As previously noted, AR's subsamples have more credibility than those of other pollsters, because they seem to be properly weighted and are therefore more stable over time.
SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 35% (-1)
Conservatives 18% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
As previously noted, AR's subsamples have more credibility than those of other pollsters, because they seem to be properly weighted and are therefore more stable over time.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Electoral Commission's reputation for impartiality in tatters as its opinion is leaked to unionist rag
If anyone needed a reminder of why so many of us wanted a Scottish rather than a London body to have oversight of the independence referendum, this is surely it. As a nation, the minimum we were entitled to expect was that we would hear the Electoral Commission's opinion (and it is merely an opinion, not a 'decision') on the proposed referendum question from the body itself, not from a unionist rag in London spouting the usual drivel about a "devastating blow" to Alex Salmond. (Incidentally, just how many more of these daily "devastating blows" can the poor man take from the London press? Presumably by now his body must already have been hacked into a thousand little pieces.)
As we apparently now have to regard the London Times as spokesperson for the scrupulously impartial Electoral Commission, it seems that the alternative question being suggested is "Should Scotland be an independent country?", on the grounds of its greater "simplicity". Which is somewhat ironic, given that much of the unionist press were screaming for a question that was considerably longer and more complex than the Scottish Government's proposal, preferably incorporating catchy words such as "separation" and "divorce".
Ah well, better a sinner that repenteth, and all that...
As we apparently now have to regard the London Times as spokesperson for the scrupulously impartial Electoral Commission, it seems that the alternative question being suggested is "Should Scotland be an independent country?", on the grounds of its greater "simplicity". Which is somewhat ironic, given that much of the unionist press were screaming for a question that was considerably longer and more complex than the Scottish Government's proposal, preferably incorporating catchy words such as "separation" and "divorce".
Ah well, better a sinner that repenteth, and all that...
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Panelbase : SNP in commanding lead for the Scottish Parliament
Many thanks to Marcia on the previous thread for alerting me to the fact that the Panelbase poll I mentioned also had voting intention figures for Holyrood. I was oblivious to the fact because it was published in the Sunday Times, and I don't pay the Murdoch levy...
Constituency ballot
SNP 45%
Labour 33%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Regional list ballot
SNP 44%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
Greens 6%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Needless to say, on those figures the SNP would be enjoying another landslide on the scale of their 2011 triumph. So all that and the Yes vote within striking distance on the referendum question as well. Long may the supposed "Scomnishambles" continue!
Constituency ballot
SNP 45%
Labour 33%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Regional list ballot
SNP 44%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
Greens 6%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Needless to say, on those figures the SNP would be enjoying another landslide on the scale of their 2011 triumph. So all that and the Yes vote within striking distance on the referendum question as well. Long may the supposed "Scomnishambles" continue!
Panelbase poll : Support for independence remains within touching distance
The latest Panelbase poll on independence is out, and although it shows an increase in the No lead, it's still more favourable for the Yes side than other recent polls.
Yes 34% (-3)
No 47% (+2)
So with the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point drop in the No lead, and this poll showing a five-point increase, there's clearly no consensus among pollsters on the trend over recent weeks. What there is, however, is a convergence on the raw figures - in the polls we've seen so far this year, Angus Reid showed an 18-point No lead, TNS-BMRB showed a 20-point No lead, and now Panelbase is showing a 13-point No lead. Clearly that type of lead is far from insurmountable with 21 months still to go until polling day. (The Tories had better hope so, because they need a very similar kind of turnaround to win the next UK general election, and yet mysteriously you won't hear the London media calling that one a lost cause!)
Talking of the media, that's one area where we don't need to seek any type of convergence. No, the one thing we've always been able to rely upon is that, in the media's eyes, each and every poll on independence represents a "devastating blow" to the Yes side, regardless of the actual figures. For example, the Sunday Times claims today that the Panelbase poll shows that support for "secession" has "slumped". (Really? A three-point drop is a "slump"?) OK, fair enough, this poll does show an increase in the No lead, so we must allow the unionist media their brief moment of gloating. But surely they must be fair-minded enough to report a poll that shows the exact opposite in a somewhat different way?
Er, no. The verdict of the Scotsman and the Herald on the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point decrease in the No lead was not that the No vote had "slumped", but that the Yes vote had "stalled".
It gets to the point where all you can do is laugh.
Yes 34% (-3)
No 47% (+2)
So with the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point drop in the No lead, and this poll showing a five-point increase, there's clearly no consensus among pollsters on the trend over recent weeks. What there is, however, is a convergence on the raw figures - in the polls we've seen so far this year, Angus Reid showed an 18-point No lead, TNS-BMRB showed a 20-point No lead, and now Panelbase is showing a 13-point No lead. Clearly that type of lead is far from insurmountable with 21 months still to go until polling day. (The Tories had better hope so, because they need a very similar kind of turnaround to win the next UK general election, and yet mysteriously you won't hear the London media calling that one a lost cause!)
Talking of the media, that's one area where we don't need to seek any type of convergence. No, the one thing we've always been able to rely upon is that, in the media's eyes, each and every poll on independence represents a "devastating blow" to the Yes side, regardless of the actual figures. For example, the Sunday Times claims today that the Panelbase poll shows that support for "secession" has "slumped". (Really? A three-point drop is a "slump"?) OK, fair enough, this poll does show an increase in the No lead, so we must allow the unionist media their brief moment of gloating. But surely they must be fair-minded enough to report a poll that shows the exact opposite in a somewhat different way?
Er, no. The verdict of the Scotsman and the Herald on the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point decrease in the No lead was not that the No vote had "slumped", but that the Yes vote had "stalled".
It gets to the point where all you can do is laugh.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Vote Yes to independence to keep Scotland in Europe
Sorry that blogging has been a bit sluggish of late, but I haven't been entirely idle. I have a new article at the International Business Times, on how David Cameron has just blown a hole in Better Together's campaign strategy - seemingly without even noticing.
You can read it HERE.
You can read it HERE.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Political predictions for the year ahead
While I was making the long journey home from the Edinburgh Hogmanay street party (an experience I paid a heavy price for - I got caught in several crushes, and later came down with a bad cold!) I was pleasantly surprised to spot on my mobile that I'd finished third in the 2012 Political Betting prediction competition. I haven't gone through the figures in detail, but I'm guessing the reason might be the gut feeling I had twelve months ago that the Tories were long overdue for a sustained spell of midterm unpopularity.
OK, lightning never strikes twice, but I thought I might as well try my luck again in this year's contest. This time, my feeling is that unless there's a general election (a very big 'if'), 2013 is likely to be a year of minimal change at UK level. Given the uninspiring personalities at the top of the Labour party, it's hard to see how they're going to build a more emphatic lead, but equally there's no particular reason to anticipate a Tory recovery. So in my predictions for what the ICM polls will show, I have all the parties in a relatively narrow range of support, with Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP ranging fractionally higher than their average over recent months, and the Tories ranging fractionally lower.
Labour high - 42%
Labour low - 39%
Conservative high - 34%
Conservative low - 30%
Liberal Democrat high - 16%
Liberal Democrat low - 13%
UKIP high - 8%
UKIP low - 5%
Labour's biggest lead - 12%
Labour's smallest lead - 5%
As soon as I pressed 'submit', I felt sure that I had been over-generous to the Lib Dems, but I suppose it's possible they may have bottomed out somewhat. I don't expect a significant recovery for them until they bite the bullet and ditch Clegg, though.
Entrants were also asked to predict who will be Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Shadow Chancellor and Culture Secretary on Christmas Day. Assuming there's no general election between now and then, it seems a fairly safe bet that Cameron and Balls will still be in harness (Miliband has even explicitly stated that Balls will remain in his current position until the election). Clegg is much less secure, but the balance of probability is that he will last at least one more year. Maria Miller isn't secure at all as Culture Secretary, but given that it's anyone's guess who would replace her if she was sacked, the 'percentage guess' is that she will still be there as well.
Prime Minister - David Cameron
Deputy Prime Minister - Nick Clegg
Shadow Chancellor - Ed Balls
Culture Secretary - Maria Miller
Now we come to three international predictions - for the post-election leaders of Australia, Italy and Germany. None of these are certainties by any means, but two of them are a bit easier to guess than the other. Pier Luigi Bersani is currently the strong favourite to become the new centre-left Prime Minister of Italy, with just a few weeks to go until polling day. If by any chance Silvio Berlusconi confounds the odds to achieve yet another comeback, I will...well, I was going to say I will emigrate, but as I don't actually live in Italy that probably wouldn't help much.
Angela Merkel is likely, but not certain, to remain Chancellor of Germany, albeit probably with a new coalition partner that is far more palatable to those of us of a left-wing persuasion (either SPD or Greens). However, an SPD/Green majority still remains a genuine possibility, and if only the SPD could overcome their aversion to cooperating with the Left Party at federal level, then Merkel would be in all sorts of trouble, because the polls currently point to a combined parliamentary majority for the SPD, Greens and Left Party.
To my surprise, the toughest prediction turned out to be Australia. I had lazily assumed that Julia Gillard and Labor were toast, but it turns out that they've made a significant recovery in recent months, and are now only a few points behind the Liberal/National coalition. Even more intriguingly, Gillard seems to have built up a clear personal lead over her opponent Tony Abbott. Looking at the dates, the turning-point may well have been Gillard's now-legendary speech in which she branded Abbott a sexist hypocrite. In the end, I still plumped for Abbott as the winner, but without any great confidence, and it goes without saying that I hope I'm wrong (even though Gillard was stupid enough to employ John McTernan).
Italian Prime Minister - Pier Luigi Bersani
German Chancellor - Angela Merkel
Australian Prime Minister - Tony Abbott
The most murderously difficult part of the prediction contest is always estimating the net gains and losses for each party in the May local elections. I had a look at the 2009 seat totals to see if I could make a rough guess as to what might happen if the projected vote shares this year were roughly the same as in May 2012, and this is what I came up with -
Conservatives down 414
Labour up 605
Liberal Democrats down 196
UKIP up 5
Labour's gains look far too high, but the Lib Dems are surely going to take a pounding, and those lost seats have to go somewhere. In all honesty, though, to make anything more than a wild guess you'd need a mathematics PhD, detailed ward-by-ward statistics that aren't easily traceable on the internet, and seven months of peace and quiet in a spacious office, with soothing whale noises playing in the background.
OK, lightning never strikes twice, but I thought I might as well try my luck again in this year's contest. This time, my feeling is that unless there's a general election (a very big 'if'), 2013 is likely to be a year of minimal change at UK level. Given the uninspiring personalities at the top of the Labour party, it's hard to see how they're going to build a more emphatic lead, but equally there's no particular reason to anticipate a Tory recovery. So in my predictions for what the ICM polls will show, I have all the parties in a relatively narrow range of support, with Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP ranging fractionally higher than their average over recent months, and the Tories ranging fractionally lower.
Labour high - 42%
Labour low - 39%
Conservative high - 34%
Conservative low - 30%
Liberal Democrat high - 16%
Liberal Democrat low - 13%
UKIP high - 8%
UKIP low - 5%
Labour's biggest lead - 12%
Labour's smallest lead - 5%
As soon as I pressed 'submit', I felt sure that I had been over-generous to the Lib Dems, but I suppose it's possible they may have bottomed out somewhat. I don't expect a significant recovery for them until they bite the bullet and ditch Clegg, though.
Entrants were also asked to predict who will be Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Shadow Chancellor and Culture Secretary on Christmas Day. Assuming there's no general election between now and then, it seems a fairly safe bet that Cameron and Balls will still be in harness (Miliband has even explicitly stated that Balls will remain in his current position until the election). Clegg is much less secure, but the balance of probability is that he will last at least one more year. Maria Miller isn't secure at all as Culture Secretary, but given that it's anyone's guess who would replace her if she was sacked, the 'percentage guess' is that she will still be there as well.
Prime Minister - David Cameron
Deputy Prime Minister - Nick Clegg
Shadow Chancellor - Ed Balls
Culture Secretary - Maria Miller
Now we come to three international predictions - for the post-election leaders of Australia, Italy and Germany. None of these are certainties by any means, but two of them are a bit easier to guess than the other. Pier Luigi Bersani is currently the strong favourite to become the new centre-left Prime Minister of Italy, with just a few weeks to go until polling day. If by any chance Silvio Berlusconi confounds the odds to achieve yet another comeback, I will...well, I was going to say I will emigrate, but as I don't actually live in Italy that probably wouldn't help much.
Angela Merkel is likely, but not certain, to remain Chancellor of Germany, albeit probably with a new coalition partner that is far more palatable to those of us of a left-wing persuasion (either SPD or Greens). However, an SPD/Green majority still remains a genuine possibility, and if only the SPD could overcome their aversion to cooperating with the Left Party at federal level, then Merkel would be in all sorts of trouble, because the polls currently point to a combined parliamentary majority for the SPD, Greens and Left Party.
To my surprise, the toughest prediction turned out to be Australia. I had lazily assumed that Julia Gillard and Labor were toast, but it turns out that they've made a significant recovery in recent months, and are now only a few points behind the Liberal/National coalition. Even more intriguingly, Gillard seems to have built up a clear personal lead over her opponent Tony Abbott. Looking at the dates, the turning-point may well have been Gillard's now-legendary speech in which she branded Abbott a sexist hypocrite. In the end, I still plumped for Abbott as the winner, but without any great confidence, and it goes without saying that I hope I'm wrong (even though Gillard was stupid enough to employ John McTernan).
Italian Prime Minister - Pier Luigi Bersani
German Chancellor - Angela Merkel
Australian Prime Minister - Tony Abbott
The most murderously difficult part of the prediction contest is always estimating the net gains and losses for each party in the May local elections. I had a look at the 2009 seat totals to see if I could make a rough guess as to what might happen if the projected vote shares this year were roughly the same as in May 2012, and this is what I came up with -
Conservatives down 414
Labour up 605
Liberal Democrats down 196
UKIP up 5
Labour's gains look far too high, but the Lib Dems are surely going to take a pounding, and those lost seats have to go somewhere. In all honesty, though, to make anything more than a wild guess you'd need a mathematics PhD, detailed ward-by-ward statistics that aren't easily traceable on the internet, and seven months of peace and quiet in a spacious office, with soothing whale noises playing in the background.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Angus Reid subsample : SNP in joint lead for Westminster
As long-term readers will know, I regard Angus Reid's Scottish subsamples as being of slightly more interest than those of other pollsters, because the relative stability of the figures over time suggest they have been properly weighted. The latest poll shows the SNP drawing level with Labour -
SNP 36% (+1)
Labour 36% (-5)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
My eye was also caught last night by ICM's final poll of 2012, because hidden away was a 'school report' section for leading politicians, which gave Alex Salmond a grade of D+, level with Nigel Farage and George Osborne, ahead of Nick Clegg on D, but behind David Cameron and Ed Miliband on C-. Now, you might assume the only reasonable way of comparing Salmond to London politicians would be to compare his rating among Scottish respondents to the rating of the others among all UK respondents. But oh no, ICM are entirely relaxed about the ability of respondents in Birmingham or Plymouth to meaningfully rate Salmond based on the fair, balanced and comprehensive reporting of him that they are exposed to via the London-based media.
Unsurprisingly, Salmond's rating in the Scottish subsample is higher than in any other UK region (except Wales, interestingly). If we compare his Scottish rating to the UK-wide rating of other public figures, we find that the quality of his work in 2012 is rated more highly than everyone other than the Queen, and David Cameron (who he is level with).
The Queen 12.0 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
David Cameron 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.6 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.0 (D+)
The coalition government generally 6.0 (D+)
George Osborne 6.0 (D+)
Nigel Farage 5.6 (D+)
Nick Clegg 5.3 (D)
The other way of making a fair comparison is to look at the figures from Scottish respondents only. That produces similar results, except of course that coalition politicians are rated quite a bit lower, and Ed Miliband a bit higher.
The Queen 11.7 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.9 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.8 (C-)
David Cameron 5.9 (D+)
The coalition government generally 5.4 (D)
Nigel Farage 5.3 (D)
George Osborne 5.2 (D)
Nick Clegg 4.5 (D)
UPDATE : And I also missed the latest TNS-BMRB independence poll, which I suppose should be the headline story, but I can't be bothered changing the whole post now. The lead for the No side has fallen by five points, which the Scotsman are bizarrely reporting as a blow for the Yes side!
Yes 28% (-)
No 48% (-5)
That is broadly in line with Angus Reid's figures from a few days ago, which showed Yes 32%, No 50% - hardly an insurmountable deficit with the best part of two years to go.
SNP 36% (+1)
Labour 36% (-5)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
My eye was also caught last night by ICM's final poll of 2012, because hidden away was a 'school report' section for leading politicians, which gave Alex Salmond a grade of D+, level with Nigel Farage and George Osborne, ahead of Nick Clegg on D, but behind David Cameron and Ed Miliband on C-. Now, you might assume the only reasonable way of comparing Salmond to London politicians would be to compare his rating among Scottish respondents to the rating of the others among all UK respondents. But oh no, ICM are entirely relaxed about the ability of respondents in Birmingham or Plymouth to meaningfully rate Salmond based on the fair, balanced and comprehensive reporting of him that they are exposed to via the London-based media.
Unsurprisingly, Salmond's rating in the Scottish subsample is higher than in any other UK region (except Wales, interestingly). If we compare his Scottish rating to the UK-wide rating of other public figures, we find that the quality of his work in 2012 is rated more highly than everyone other than the Queen, and David Cameron (who he is level with).
The Queen 12.0 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
David Cameron 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.6 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.0 (D+)
The coalition government generally 6.0 (D+)
George Osborne 6.0 (D+)
Nigel Farage 5.6 (D+)
Nick Clegg 5.3 (D)
The other way of making a fair comparison is to look at the figures from Scottish respondents only. That produces similar results, except of course that coalition politicians are rated quite a bit lower, and Ed Miliband a bit higher.
The Queen 11.7 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.9 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.8 (C-)
David Cameron 5.9 (D+)
The coalition government generally 5.4 (D)
Nigel Farage 5.3 (D)
George Osborne 5.2 (D)
Nick Clegg 4.5 (D)
UPDATE : And I also missed the latest TNS-BMRB independence poll, which I suppose should be the headline story, but I can't be bothered changing the whole post now. The lead for the No side has fallen by five points, which the Scotsman are bizarrely reporting as a blow for the Yes side!
Yes 28% (-)
No 48% (-5)
That is broadly in line with Angus Reid's figures from a few days ago, which showed Yes 32%, No 50% - hardly an insurmountable deficit with the best part of two years to go.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Quote of the year, and it's still only week two
This is a two-and-a-half-day-old quote from Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, arguing for a hefty increase in MPs' salaries in order to attract the best 'talent'. As you read this, try very hard to remember that MPs already earn more than 95% of the population.
"A man or a woman who's very capable, doing very well in their profession, whatever that may be, with a family, are they going to be willing to take that pay cut, look their children in the eye when it's Christmas, say you can't have what you normally have because Mummy or Daddy wants to be an MP."
Hmmm. Perhaps as Christmas morning draws to a close in the households of MPs, there should be a Generation Game-style conveyor belt scene.
"Well you've had your real presents, Jack and Jenny, but just for fun, let's take a peek at what you COULD have had if only Daddy hadn't sacrificed himself on the altar of public service...
A bottle of Heidsieck Monopole 1907 Champagne!
Garçon à la Pipe by Pablo Picasso!
Five minutes of high tea with Tony Blair!
An Haute Joaillerie diamond-studded watch!
A Gurkha Black Dragon cigar in a camel bone chest!
Japan!
The 35.56 carat Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond!
A PrestigeHD Supreme Rose TV made of hand-sewn alligator skin!
The services of Geoff Hoon!
Ooooh, didn't you do BADLY?"
How can society be so beastly to these children? Treble MPs' salaries now!
"A man or a woman who's very capable, doing very well in their profession, whatever that may be, with a family, are they going to be willing to take that pay cut, look their children in the eye when it's Christmas, say you can't have what you normally have because Mummy or Daddy wants to be an MP."
Hmmm. Perhaps as Christmas morning draws to a close in the households of MPs, there should be a Generation Game-style conveyor belt scene.
"Well you've had your real presents, Jack and Jenny, but just for fun, let's take a peek at what you COULD have had if only Daddy hadn't sacrificed himself on the altar of public service...
A bottle of Heidsieck Monopole 1907 Champagne!
Garçon à la Pipe by Pablo Picasso!
Five minutes of high tea with Tony Blair!
An Haute Joaillerie diamond-studded watch!
A Gurkha Black Dragon cigar in a camel bone chest!
Japan!
The 35.56 carat Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond!
A PrestigeHD Supreme Rose TV made of hand-sewn alligator skin!
The services of Geoff Hoon!
Ooooh, didn't you do BADLY?"
How can society be so beastly to these children? Treble MPs' salaries now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)