Total Politics Blog Poll

If I have any readers left, can I point you to the button on the sidebar that will take you to the Total Politics poll of best blogs 2010.  As usual, this is being run by Total Politics and promoted by Iain Dale, Labour List and Lib Dem Voice.  Some rules you may need to know:  


1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

I finished fourth in Scotland last year, but was much more active than I have been recently, so I'm not expecting much.  Indeed, I'm not even going to ask for your vote.  All I'm suggesting is that if you read blogs, you may want to vote.  Go on... 

Read more...

20 SNP MPs? Don't think so

A few days ago - prior to the SNP conference starting - Jeff made a list of potential gains for the SNP in the coming Westminster election. No doubt over the course of the weekend he drank in more optimism from the gathered masses in Inverness and feels pretty good about his prediction. Makes sense - conferences are meant to recharge the batteries, invigorate the activists to campaign and deliver some seats. Even so, I still think his list may be somewhat... optimistic. Saying that, I'd love to have some of what he is drinking!

Jeff's list of potential SNP gains (in order of ascending swing required to win):

Ochil & South Perthshire (0.75%)

Livingston (4.55% - from by-election)

Dundee West (7.3%)

Kilmarnock & Loudoun (9.8%)

Argyll & Bute (10.55%)

Aberdeen North (10.6%)

Edinburgh East (11.5%)

Stirling (11.7%)

Edinburgh North & Leith (12%)

Linlithgow & Falkirk East (12.1%)

East Lothian (14.2%)

Gordon (14.5%)

Falkirk (14.75%)

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow (15.4%)

Plus an extra shopping list of:

North Ayrshire & Arran (12.95%)

Paisley & Renfrewshire North (13.45%)

Midlothian (14.25%)

Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East (14.8%)

Inverclyde (15.55%)

Glasgow Central (16.7%)

Anyway, I'm not sure what kind of national swing Jeff's predictions are based on, but by my reckoning only something in the range of a massive 14% LAB-SNP national swing would see some of the higher ones on the list go. And given the UK level is a straight fight between Labour and the Tories, I'd expect the latter to muscle in a wee bit on the fight in Scotland, grabbing a wee bit of the swing from Labour. In short, I can only see something like a 7 or 8% national swing at absolute best to the SNP from Labour. That isn't to say they won't win a couple of other seats which require a larger swing (as happened in 2007 - they failed to win Cumbernauld on a minor swing but grabbed Gordon & Stirling on massive swings) but I don't expect the "extra list" to come into play... or indeed much of the first list beyond Argyll & Bute. Saying that, there may be a couple of surprises (Gordon?).

Now the main criticism of my analysis here is that the swings are based on an election which will be five years old by the time the election comes round. And that is fair - we've had a Holyrood (2007) and European (2009) election since then, in both of which the SNP have polled remarkably well. Indeed, if the we transpose the European Parliament vote onto the Westminster constituencies, the SNP would end up winning more seats than Labour - from memory, everything north of Stirling, most of Edinburgh and some surprising bits of Glasgow (potentially goodbye to Glasgow South's blogging MP). So yes, there is potential for some shocks - and some big SNP gains.

But I'll return to the reason I'm suggesting some of them are not going to fall to the SNP, and that is that it is a Westminster election. While the party appear to be winning round people in Scotland - at least for Holyrood elections - this is their first real test of popularity as a Government. And I think they'll do fine - just perhaps not quite as well as some people think they will.

Coming off the fence, I'd give them 6 of 7 the seats they currently hold (minus Glasgow East) plus 6 or 7 more... but no more than 13 SNP MPs after the election. And here's a tip - the constituency where they need less than a 1% swing from Labour may be more difficult than you'd think. If Ochil and South Perthshire slips from Labour control, it might just be a Tory Gain rather than a Nat MP for the constituency.

Thoughts?

Read more...

Stat of the day

On the bias at the heart of the First Past the Post electoral system:

1992: Tories had a lead of 7.6% over Labour in the popular vote, but won a majority of just 21 seats.

2001: Labour's lead over Tories is 9.3% - majority is 167.

In the next election, if the two parties had a similar share of the vote (around 30% each), Labour would win 111 more seats than the Tories. For the Tories to win the same number of seats as Labour, they would need to beat Labour by 6.4%.

So, lucky for them they have a rather large poll lead at the moment.

How does that work? Two reasons:

1) Average electorate in "Labour" seats is smaller than in Tory ones.

2) Labour wins a lot of seats with small majorities, the Tories stack up huge majorities in the seats that they win, meaning Labour get a better return of seats for smaller national votes.

Democracy... it's all about how you get elected eh?

Read more...

Double-act have no x-factor

Iain Gray and Jim Murphy spoke at the Labour Party Conference yesterday. What's that? No one noticed?

I think the Scottish press did.

The Herald headline reads:

"Scottish Labour leaders (sic) attack political enemies whose 'sole creed is self interest'"

Now, I'm not one for being pedantic (okay Yousuf, I am!) but one must point out the glaring error in their title.

As James will tell you, Iain Gray is the "Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament (LOLITSP). He is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Especially if you ask some Scottish Labour MPs.

Jim Murphy is Secretary of State for Scotland (SoSoS). Which means, at government level, he is Gordon Brown's "holding midfielder" - the link between his defence at Westminster and his attack at Holyrood (see what I did there?). He too, is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Gordon Brown himself is.

But that's just a minor point.

The Scotsman has an interesting take on Iain Gray's speech to Labour conference yesterday. He is obviously their Scottish Labour leader of fancy:

"Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has signalled he could hold a referendum on Scottish independence if he becomes First Minister, in a dramatic shift from official party policy."

reads their first paragraph. And that's kind of what he said. Except not really. And certainly not in so many words. I checked the speech - not once did he use the phrase "if I was First Minister." Which is a shame, because I always find it funny when he does. Kind of like Fiddler on the Roof's "If I were a rich man," it makes Iain Gray look like a dreamer.

No, his speech was designed to attack. The problem was, he was trying to attack two distinct "enemies" - nationalism and conservatism. Ironic then, that Labour have fallen to third, behind the the Liberal Democrats, in the latest Ipsos-Mori poll. Looks like he was turning his fire in the wrong direction.

Ach well, with the 2010 election looking like a write-off, there's always the 2011 Scottish Parliament election. Just think Gordon Jim Iain, if only you were First Minister...

Read more...

EU Election: Dos and D'Hondts

Like some others in the blogosphere, I am distinctly apathetic when it comes to voting in the upcoming European election (with apologies to Yousuf, who seems quite enthusiastic about it). For one thing, the European Parliamentary election is, in a British context anyway, a "second order election" - and in Scotland and Wales, perhaps even third order. For another, with ongoing expenses scandals and MPs resigning rather than facing the electorate, the public are - rightly, in my view - pretty annoyed with their representatives and not particularly in the mood to vote some of them to gravy train that is the European Parliament.

Saying all that though, I probably will go vote on Thursday. Polling station is just across the road and all that. Plus, as a political commentator of sorts, I feel duty-bound to go vote for someone - anyone - if only so I can continue to harp from the sidelines.

So, just to get me in the mood, I've been looking at some numbers. Jeff has been doing the numbers for Scotland for weeks while James and Calum have been looking at more recent numbers which have the Greens looking good for seat number 6 here (though their working is slightly different). Basically - I think - we're looking at a fight for the sixth seat. I expect the SNP and Labour both to win two and the Tories to win one. Will the Greens be able to fight off the Lib Dems for a seat (not necessarily the last one as James' working shows) or will the SNP/ Labour manage to grab a third (as Calum suggests)? With Scotland losing an MEP due to EU expansion, its all to play for on this score.

UK-wide, it's an interesting tale. Including the (currently 7) Scottish MEPs, the situation currently is:

Conservative - 27 seats
Labour - 19 seats
UKIP - 12 seats
Lib Dem - 12 seats
(UK) Green - 2 seats
SNP - 2 seats
Plaid Cymru - 1 seat

Ignoring (but not forgetting!) Northern Ireland's 3 seats, Britain's representation falls from 75 to 69 - meaning a seat less in six of the EU constituencies (including Scotland). Which is important to remember.

Also important: The share of the vote at the last election (2004) saw the Tories win with 27.6% of the vote. Labour won 22.6%, UKIP came third with 16.1% ahead of the Lib Dems on 14.9%. The Greens won two seats with 5.8% of the vote while the BNP returned no MEPs with their 4.9%.

YouGov's latest poll (published 1st June) has the Tories out in the lead on 27% and Lab (17%) UKIP (16%) and the Lib Dems (15%) battling for second. The poll also puts the Greens at 9% and the BNP on 7% (which may actually be higher - I mean, how likely would you be to tell pollsters if you were going to vote for the BNP.

Given those figures - and to make this a little more interesting - I'm taking a stab at projecting seat numbers on a Britain-wide basis. Here's how I think it will go:

Conservative - 23 seats
Labour - 14 seats
UKIP - 13 seats
Lib Dem - 9 seats
(UK) Green - 5 seats
SNP - 2 seats
BNP - 1 seats (sadly...)
Plaid Cymru - 1 seat
(Scottish) Green - 1 seat

So, good news and bad. The "big three" will struggle, with only the Tories holding onto their poll figures while Labour might well drop down to third or fourth on vote share, but still win more seats than UKIP and the Lib Dems on the basis of their (probable) two Scottish seats. Good election for the Greens Britain-wide - multiplying their representation threefold but I think the BNP might well grab a seat somewhere. They were only 90,000 votes off getting one the last time out and, depending on the turnout, they may be well-placed to pick up the votes of the apathetic and the seriously pissed off. Let's hope not though.

So that's that. Incidentally, you still have about 20 hours to change my mind on who to vote for - not that I've made up my mind yet...

PS - with the raft of Cabinet-level, former Cabinet-level and other MP resignations, Gordon Brown might call it a day on Monday - depending how badly Labour tank in the English Council elections. I don't want to say you heard it here first... but if you did and it happens then that "might" wasn't in the previous sentence!

UPDATE - Political Betting has news of a final YouGov Poll before tomorrow's election. Scores on the doors:

Conservative - 26%
UKIP - 18%
Labour - 16%
Lib Dem - 15%
(UK) Green - 10%
BNP - 5%

Which may or may not make my numbers look good. Guess it all comes down to the turnout - which might be higher than usual for an EU election.

Read more...

"SNP soars ahead of Labour"

so says The Herald today. And, erm, Jeff.

Base figures are:

Westminster (Scotland) Voting intention:
LAB - 32% SNP - 30% CON - 21% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Constituency) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 30% CON - 15% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Regional) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 28% CON - 15%
LD - 13% OTHER - 7%

A lot is being made of the fact that the poll was conducted for YouGov on behalf of the SNP. I find that a funny complaint. Although the March YouGov poll that I featured here wasn't for the SNP, the methodology would presumably be fairly similar. In that poll - for the same company as I stressed - Labour held a 10-point lead over the SNP on Westminster voting intention. That has been cut to 2 points in one month.

I'd suggest that Labour have, perhaps, not exactly had a great month. What with "smeargate" and a budget which there is a very public debate over, and 8-point swing might reflect that bad press.

Most frightening stat for Labour to come out of the poll though is this one:

Who would make the best First Minister?
Alex Salmond - 36%
Iain Gray - 7%

Ouch.

Read more...

Does a 2-point swing mean a 2009 election?

Further to yesterday's post about the prospect of a 2009 General Election, I fed the numbers into UK Polling Report's Swing Calculator and found the following result:

CON 41% = 312 seats (+114)
LAB 34% = 281 seats (-75)
LD 16% = 28 seats (-34)

If this poll were to be replicated in a General election, the net result would be a Hung Parliament, with the Tories 14 seats short of a majority. That, bear in mind, is with a 7 point gap between Labour and the Tories.

If however, Labour manage to close the gap to a 5 point Tory lead (unthinkable a couple of months ago) there's a different story to be told:

CON 40% = 293 seats (+95)
LAB 35% = 300 seats (-56)
LD 16% = 29 seats (-33)

Labour still lose the vote by 5 points... but they end up with seven seats more than the Tories. End result is still a Hung Parliament, but it is Labour 26 seats short of a majority (Tories 33 short). Crucially, while remaining on 16% the Lib Dems would actually hang onto an extra seat (presumably at the expense of a Tory gain) and return 29 MPs... which would leave them in a position to negotiate coalition with Labour (but not the Tories).

Enough of the electoral mathematics done on the back of a napkin, what's my point? Namely this... the way the constituency boundaries work favours Labour. They can maintain a level of vote that is slightly over a third and yet still return almost half the seats. That puts them in a favourable position of not actually having to beat the Tories in terms of vote share to win an election. They simply have to win more seats. And the likelihood of them doing so is high if they can claw back a couple of percentage points back from the Tories.

These numbers are, of course, worked out on the basis of uniform swing, which is unlikely. It also doesn't take into account regional strength, relative strength of nationalist competition in Scotland and Wales or the Tories recent electoral alliance with the Ulster Unionists who, presumably, would support them in the event of a Hung Parliament.

My question is this: If this is as good as it will get for Labour - realistically, they are not going to pull ahead of Cameron's Conservatives anytime soon - if they can get to within 5 points of them nationally, why wouldn't Gordon Brown go to the polls?

With 300 MPs and 35% of the vote there are many commentators who (after the spanking Labour have been taking in the polls over the last few months) would see this as a massive result for Gordon Brown. To only be 26 seats short of governing - with the economic mess and unemployment rising by the hour - would be nothing short of miraculous.

A betting man would like the odds. And surely, there's a small part of Gordon Brown that thinks he might just go for it...

Just so you know, I didn't ignore the Populus poll (Con 43 Lab 30 LD 18) published yesterday - I hadn't seen it when I'd written this. I do think it is something of an outlier though and that, rather than leading up to a Cameron lead, the polls are squeezing. Thoughts?

Read more...

No election this year?

When I was writing my 2009 predictions (I'm not doing too well so far - though I did call 3 changes on the Scottish Government benches, as well as a struggle to pass the budget) I bit the bullet and plumped for an election this year. I thought - correctly, as it has turned out - that Gordon Brown's handling of the economy would shrink Tory poll leads and that he'd go for an election in June as a result of Labour's less than disastrous showing in English Council Elections in May.

Now we are only in April, but the PM has apparently ruled out calling a snap election, saying:

"I am not going to get into talk about dates."

"Our first priority is jobs, it's homes and it's businesses. We have got to show people how we can take the country through this difficulty."

"I think if you were a citizen of Britain looking at what's happening in the economy you would want our first priority to be exactly what it is."

That, according to The Scotsman, equates with the following headline

"Brown rejects snap election despite Labour's G20 'bounce'"

Hang on a minute though. Is there anything in what he says that explicitly rules out an election? Because I can't see it. He said he's not going to talk about dates. Which means not that he is not considering an election, merely that he is not going public with these considerations at the moment.

And why would he? Labour's position in Westminster polls has improved markedly over the last few months. And the latest YouGov (post G20) poll has them within 7 points of the Tories:

CON 41%
LAB 34%
LD 16%

A far cry from the days of 20-point Tory leads. Now instead of facing down the barrel of a huge defeat, we are probably looking at the prospect of a hung-parliament while if Labour can claw back another couple of points they might even manage to scrape into government for a fourth term.

Far better for Brown to be in with a fighting chance of forming a government after the election than have a small band of MPs to oppose a massive Tory government.

I'm keeping my neck on the line and going with a 2009 election. I think he may go with it on the same day as the European election - though if the polls continue to swing Labour's way, he may hold out until September.

Anyone agree?

Read more...

Polls polls polls...

It seems that the blogosphere has been getting its collective knickers in a knot over several polls published in the last few days.

You will no doubt have seen the figures from this Sunday Times/ YouGov poll elsewhere (Jeff, Yousuf) but here's the base figures anyway:

Westminster (Scotland) Voting intention:
LAB - 37% SNP - 27% CON - 20% LD - 11%

Scottish Parliament (Constituency) Voting intention:
SNP - 35% LAB - 24% CON - 14% LD - 12%

Scottish Parliament (Regional) Voting intention:
LAB - 32% SNP - 30% CON - 15%
LD - 11% GREEN - 5% OTHER - 7%

Sample size - 1,380.

Which is interesting, as it suggests that Labour might have some sort of recovery going. If this were the case, it would probably be reflected in other polls on the go at the moment...

Maybe, like this Ipsos-Mori poll which, on a UK level gives the following voting intentions:

CON - 42% (-4 since last poll)
LAB - 32% (+6)
LD - 14% (-3%)

Which is... a staggering 10 point swing to Labour. So... is everything now rosy (as opposed to a wilting rose) in the Labour garden?

Well, I'd suggest not. At least, not yet - though these numbers do suggest that the next election is not a shoe-in just yet for PM-in-waiting Cameron. For while the numbers are pretty good - there are a couple of caveats. At a UK level, David Cameron has just returned from bereavement leave which took him out of the public eye for awhile and allowed Gordon Brown to make headlines unchallenged (which also suggests a weakness of the Tory front bench - are they a one-man band?). Equally, in Scotland, Labour's numbers have been shored up without any real action to back them up (which, I guess, if you were Labour-inclined, you'd see as a good thing - when action starts, the numbers will go up even more, right?).

I think there are two factors at play here. One, the UK Labour Government has had its trough, its low point, and is recovering from that steadily if not remarkably. Two, in Scotland, the SNP's honeymoon - as portrayed across the media - appears to be at an end. Things are starting to get tougher, positive editorials even harder to come by than they were - and Labour are (slowly) learning how to be an opposition party again.

There is still plenty of time for Labour's numbers at both a UK & Scotland level to slump again, but I think there is one thing for sure at the moment, and that is that the next UK election, whenever it is called, will not be the blowout Tory victory once expected.

Read more...

Poll watch - UK

Quick post on Sky News reports on an Ipsos MORI Poll which gives the following votes for the parties:

Conservatives 48% (+4)
Labour 28% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 17% (n/c)

Also in the poll - 64% are dissatisfied with the performance of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

Disasterous poll for Labour. Mind you, I bet Tom Harris will find a way of spinning it as great news...

Read more...

Westminster still matters for the SNP

I read with interest Jeff's take on the YouGov post-budget-vote-Scottish poll printed at the weekend. And I'd throw a note of caution his way.

For yes, he is right (and he'll enjoy my saying so!) in that "Holyrood is the main show in town for the SNP." Poll numbers from there are not only based upon the popularity of the SNP in government in Scotland, they follow the workings of the Scottish Parliament and give a clear indication of voters' intentions in Scottish Parliament elections (albeit two years prior to the next - scheduled - one of those). And since 1999 the party has focused its energies on the Holyrood Parliament, with the "gradualist" approach of winning seats, taking office, proving competence, holding and winning a referendum seemingly well in its way to fruition.

But (you could sense it coming) what of those who are banished from Holyrood, sent to serve time in a foreign land, that Parliament hosted by the arch-nemesis? For if there is only one game in town, if Westminster is but a mere distraction, why bother with the place? Why not invite abstentionism? Or, if you must stand, why not refuse to take up your seats - as Sinn Fein's members do?

There is a reason. You see, the SNP's strategy, while bold, seemingly foolproof and inherently democratic (in that it lets the people decide their constitutional future - a noble and somewhat under-used gesture) has one, somewhat major flaw: No one knows whether it can be done.

This referendum would require a majority of votes in Parliament to be held, it is true. But even if the SNP could muster a simple majority (65 - possibly with the aid of Lib Dems and Greens - of 129) that probably would not be enough. Not enough? And why on earth not I hear you ask?

Well... here's the rub. There's no guarantee that such a vote in the Scottish Parliament would be upheld as "within the remit of the Scottish Parliament." Any changes to the Scotland Act, "constitutional arrangements" or "sanctioning" of a referendum which seeks to change these arrangements would probably have to pass through Westminster.

So yes, 65 might be a majority in the Scottish Parliament... but the 7 SNP MPs fall far short of a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster. And I'd argue Jeff's point. Yes the main game for the SNP is Holyrood. And yes, if they are to achieve their raison d'etre of independence then it will be through a referendum. But it is - at the very least - debateable whether that referendum will be delivered through the Scottish Parliament or by Westminster if/when the SNP gain a majority of Scotland's MPs.

I'm not one of those who subscribes to the belief that a hung parliament will aid this goal. But what I am pointing out - albeit in a rather long and winded way - is that Westminster, while now a second priority for the SNP, remains an important part of their plans for the constitutional future of Scotland.

But a good poll for the party!

Read more...

Lies, damn lies and polls

I'll be brief with this one:

Great piece over at politicalbetting emphasising what I've been saying for weeks about polls - that is, that those supporting Obama are more likely to participate in the polls.

Please remember 2000 and this.
The point I'm making? Don't start counting chickens (or states) until after the results are in - and not just the exit polls.

Read more...

Politics Home poll (late analysis)

Now I know this is based on a poll. True, it was a massive poll - of 35,000 people. And it was done over 200 marginal seats across the UK.

But still. Doesn't this map - based on the Politics Home projections - look horrible if you are a member of the Labour party?

Huge chunks of Wales have turned blue for goodness sake! What does that say about Labour at the moment?

Pop over to Anseo at North to Leith for further analysis of the numbers - and some guesswork...

Read more...

And another thing...

He might be the top blogger in Scotland but Tom Harris MP seems to have lost his mind.

I mean, I know its hard when you are a member of Gordon Brown's Government (well, okay, a Parliamentary Under Secretary in Mr Harris' case).

But really - on the back of a poll by Ipsos MORI which puts the Tories on 52% and Labour on 24% - how can you possibly, possibly THINK, never mind say, that the "Tories will lose the next election."?!!!

I mean... I know I go against the grain on occasion - suggesting in summer last year (well before I started blogging) that John McCain would get the Repubican nomination despite running out of money and trailing in the polls. But this is very different.

I'll break it down for you. Tom explicitly says "the Tories will lose the next election." Given that Lib Dem support has collapsed to 12% in this poll (suggesting that they may even slip to below SNP/PC in seats) I'll take it from that he doesn't mean that Nick Clegg will be Prime Minister in the event of a Tory loss.

Which means... drum roll.... that Tom Harris thinks Labour will win the next election.

Maybe if he has 5 minutes, he could explain how that will happen.

Read more...