All this talk of Anti-SNP tactical voting is very similar to the previous talk of anti-UKIP tactical voting.
In the 90s/00s Lib/Lab tactical voting worked well as it was a case of vote for a party you quite like to stop a party you hate.
Now the message is vote for one party you hate to stop another party you hate.
In Rochester, it turned about that more Lab supporters hated the Cons than UKIP.
Who do SCON supporters hate more - SLAB or SNP? My guess is that currently more hate the old enemy than the new one. Possibly this might change for 2020/2021 if the SNP becomes unpopular.
Monkeys Scottish Tories were quite prepared to campaign with Labour in the BT campaign to beat the SNP, no reason some will not vote for them to keep out the SNP at other elections
Not to mention, even taking this debate on the PBTories' terms of the bond markets being all-important
Surely it's you who views them bond markets as being all important. If you run 10%+ deficits in perpetuity then you need to get the money to pay for welfare and public services from somewhere. Like the bond markets. In your world the bond markets are King because as soon as they say no to funding your deficits you are, you know, f*cked.
The general consensus seems to be that Scottish Labour's support is down to 25% and that things surely can’t get much worse. Being a life-long labour supporter now supporting the SNP and living in Central Scotland, my sense is that things are about to get much worse for SLAB before they get better. I think the core 25% is going to be further reduced by the following factors:
- SNP continuing to monopolise the centre left space. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract the proportion of the female vote, which had been previously turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make inroads, as in the rest of the UK. –The SSP will also take some support away. - A bit of the LibDem resurgence once they are free from the shackles of the coalition. – SLAB will struggle to get their vote out.
Taking account all the above, we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area which would be extinction point. The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and main stream media have become.
In terms of tactical voting, I could envisage Conservatives voting SNP to add to SLAB’s woes and Greens voting SNP. I don’t envisage there being a “Unionist” alliance to try and combat the SNP, as the mainstream parties are all going to be at each other’s throats nationally.
The PB consensus is that there will be massive anti-SNP tactical voting. Yet another bit of evidence for the dossier. They haven't got the faintest clue about Scotland.
You claimed that a high turnout in the referendum would inevitably lead to a Yes victory in the referendum. You have an atrocious record on forecasting Scottish political developments from your Swedish bungalow.
To give Stuart his due , he is not as bad at forecasting Scottish political developments as is Easterross .
When we look at Scottish polls is it worth considering possible confusion between Edingurgh and Westminster parliaments? I would have thought not but the fact remains there are the alternatives and that there is more logic in voting SNP in the Edinburgh election.
As for the other polling companies who poll less frequently this is what their sample averages look like. (Though these are taken over a longer period and in many cases well below 1,000 samples.)
For all the ComRes UK polls since IndyRef (24 September 2014 to 30th November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 6 polls gives a combined number of 622. Results are:
SNP - 42% Labour - 27% Con - 15% LD - 5% UKIP - 5% Green - 4% Other - 2%
For all the Survation UK polls since IndyRef (10 October to 7 November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 3 polls gives a combined number of 282. Results are:
SNP - 48% Labour - 24% Con - 11% LD - 6% UKIP - 8% Green - 2% Other - 1%
For all the ICM UK polls since IndyRef (10 October to 9 November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 2 polls gives a combined number of 102. Results are:
SNP - 38% Labour - 28% Con - 16% LD - 5% UKIP - 8% Green - 4% Other - 1%
For all the IPSOS-Mori UK polls since IndyRef (11 October to 10 November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 2 polls gives a combined number of 168. Results are:
SNP - 51% Labour - 19% Con - 17% LD - 3% UKIP - 4% Green - 5% Other - 1%
For all the Lord Ashcroft UK polls since IndyRef (19 September to 30 November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 12 polls gives a combined number of 952. Results are:
SNP - 46% Labour - 25% Con - 14% LD - 6% UKIP - 4% Green - 4% Other - 2%
For all the Populus UK polls since IndyRef (19 September to 30 November 2014) the total Scottish samples of 12 polls gives a combined number of 2,651. Results are:
SNP - 36% Labour - 29% Con - 19% LD - 9% UKIP - 4% Green - 3% Other - >0%
It doesn't matter how often I see "LD 3%" it always makes me chortle.
Speedy Tories were the most staunch No backers, Tory voters are far closer to Jim Murphy than Nicola Sturgeon, now that many leftwing Labour supporters who voted Yes in the referendum are backing the SNP and the Greens it is safer for Scottish Tories to vote for a more centrist Labour Party that is committed to the union. In a straight Labour v SNP contest many will do so According to today's yougov Scotland figures the SNP are on 38% and the Greens on 7% ie 45%. Labour are on 29% and the Tories are on 17% ie 46% and 1% more than the SNP + Green total
Well there certainly seems no point is Tories voting for a left wing SNP who will not co-operate witha tory govt nationally. If Labour are going to win (or percieved so) nationally then whats the point of tories voting for them? What is the point of right wing nationalists voting SNP if it has moved even to the left of Labour and in unilateralist? Would 'tory' nationalists continue to believe in the viability of an independent Scotland now?
The PB consensus is that there will be massive anti-SNP tactical voting. Yet another bit of evidence for the dossier. They haven't got the faintest clue about Scotland.
You claimed that a high turnout in the referendum would inevitably lead to a Yes victory in the referendum. You have an atrocious record on forecasting Scottish political developments from your Swedish bungalow.
To give Stuart his due , he is not as bad at forecasting Scottish political developments as is Easterross .
When we look at Scottish polls is it worth considering possible confusion between Edingurgh and Westminster parliaments? I would have thought not but the fact remains there are the alternatives and that there is more logic in voting SNP in the Edinburgh election.
That is precisely the issue I was thinking about earlier when reading the thread. Normally what you say is true as Labour are the best bet for tactical voting if you don't want a Tory. But that is no longer the case and if you want to follow the old tradition of keeping the Tories out of Scotland then voting SNP is the thing to do. And add to that the impact of the increasingly tarnished promises of the Vow.
What is so interesting is that the Westminster VI seems to have converged on Holyrood - almost as if everyone who votes SNP at Holyrood because they run the country well is realising they may, nay must, do so at Westminster as well. That's an oversimplification - I think tactical voting will surprise all of us some of the time in Scotland in 2015 - but bear in mind that the Holyrood system was fiddled by Labour to make sure the losers win as well (including one Ruth Davidson, who couldn't win a constituency). Westminster, on the other hand, is FPTP in a four horse race (or rather three horses and two ponies).
You got: Margaret Thatcher Wicked!!! You are defined by your desire to see Britain lead in Europe and abroad. In 1975 you fought to keep Britain in Europe but towards the end of your career you became more sceptical. This didn’t stop you rounding up a famous speech in 1988 with: “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
Same for me. Put out by something called 'British Influence' which is run by Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Danny Alexander: http://www.britishinfluence.org/info
Reminds me of 'Political compass' and other such things -most of which provide a more left-wing result than anticipated unless you're channelling Herman Goering when answering.
Yes, I always seem to end up pretty monochrome when I do the Compass. I like the Goering comparison. In fact, I'm going to give it another go right now. See if I've mellowed in my old age.
It's cheap propaganda. UKIP should do their own one. Do you believe that control over UK immigration should reside with the UK? Bam - Result=UKIP.
This map is fascinating, and I shall be studying it at length.
But how does one deal with the Con/Nat coalition boobie?
Like every other piece of information, you have to do with it as you think fit. Personally, I don't expect to see the SNP in coalition with anyone after the election. I set my own views out at length on the permutations last week here:
Maybe not constituency polls but Populus have combined all their polls for November (fieldwork: 5 to 27 November 2014) and have breakdowns by cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow on page 44 here:
Flightpath Indeed, while a few rightwing nationalists may have voted for the more business friendly and tax cutting Salmond, even they may balk at Sturgeon
Carnyx The SNP is on 38% today after Smith's report, slightly less than earlier weeks
This map is fascinating, and I shall be studying it at length.
But how does one deal with the Con/Nat coalition boobie?
Like every other piece of information, you have to do with it as you think fit. Personally, I don't expect to see the SNP in coalition with anyone after the election. I set my own views out at length on the permutations last week here:
But I'm wishing I could have put together something like this map, even though I don't agree with every detail.
The graph is a mathematical representation of the possible routes to a majority in parliament. It does not mean that any of the descriptions are politically feasible.
If we are in the Nats/Con coalition space post election then there is likely to be a minority government of some sort, if the Nats don't play ball.
When we look at Scottish polls is it worth considering possible confusion between Edingurgh and Westminster parliaments? I would have thought not but the fact remains there are the alternatives and that there is more logic in voting SNP in the Edinburgh election.
I wouldn't doubt there is - particularly in past voter recall - but this graph is the same polling company (YouGov) asking the same Westminster voting question and does show a perciptible shift during and then after the IndyRef:
Love the graphic, although surely C&S is far more likely for the Nats than going into coalition? Not sure that nationalist parties have very often gone into the central government (don't think they have in either Spain or Canada for example).
For anyone who would like to play, the Japan game is now available - entries close at 9pm on Saturday:
You got: Margaret Thatcher Wicked!!! You are defined by your desire to see Britain lead in Europe and abroad. In 1975 you fought to keep Britain in Europe but towards the end of your career you became more sceptical. This didn’t stop you rounding up a famous speech in 1988 with: “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
Same for me. Put out by something called 'British Influence' which is run by Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Danny Alexander: http://www.britishinfluence.org/info
Reminds me of 'Political compass' and other such things -most of which provide a more left-wing result than anticipated unless you're channelling Herman Goering when answering.
Yes, I always seem to end up pretty monochrome when I do the Compass. I like the Goering comparison. In fact, I'm going to give it another go right now. See if I've mellowed in my old age.
It's cheap propaganda. UKIP should do their own one. Do you believe that control over UK immigration should reside with the UK? Bam - Result=UKIP.
I see what you mean, but the broad interest and appeal of these things comes from them being seen as balanced and impartial.
If anyone actually wanted to write another successful one then the way forward is to crowd-source the questions and answers/scores from somewhere like here on PB.Plenty of people have the technical skills to do it but the impartiality of the questions is the killer angle.
Love the graphic, although surely C&S is far more likely for the Nats than going into coalition? Not sure that nationalist parties have very often gone into the central government (don't think they have in either Spain or Canada for example).
For anyone who would like to play, the Japan game is now available - entries close at 9pm on Saturday:
Carnyx The SNP is on 38% today after Smith's report, slightly less than earlier weeks
It's YouGov weekly average is at the highest it's been. Today's sample may be at 38% but Friday's was 50% and Thursday's 49%. Both after Smith. They haven't hit 50% in a YouGov sample before.
The PB consensus is that there will be massive anti-SNP tactical voting. Yet another bit of evidence for the dossier. They haven't got the faintest clue about Scotland.
You claimed that a high turnout in the referendum would inevitably lead to a Yes victory in the referendum. You have an atrocious record on forecasting Scottish political developments from your Swedish bungalow.
To give Stuart his due , he is not as bad at forecasting Scottish political developments as is Easterross .
When we look at Scottish polls is it worth considering possible confusion between Edingurgh and Westminster parliaments? I would have thought not but the fact remains there are the alternatives and that there is more logic in voting SNP in the Edinburgh election.
That is precisely the issue I was thinking about earlier when reading the thread. Normally what you say is true as Labour are the best bet for tactical voting if you don't want a Tory. But that is no longer the case and if you want to follow the old tradition of keeping the Tories out of Scotland then voting SNP is the thing to do. And add to that the impact of the increasingly tarnished promises of the Vow.
What is so interesting is that the Westminster VI seems to have converged on Holyrood - almost as if everyone who votes SNP at Holyrood because they run the country well is realising they may, nay must, do so at Westminster as well. That's an oversimplification - I think tactical voting will surprise all of us some of the time in Scotland in 2015 - but bear in mind that the Holyrood system was fiddled by Labour to make sure the losers win as well (including one Ruth Davidson, who couldn't win a constituency). Westminster, on the other hand, is FPTP in a four horse race (or rather three horses and two ponies).
Thye SNP would misrepresent any so called 'vow'. Do people consider they have run the country well? They may think that a bigger SNP Westminster presence may allow more horse trading. Then again what do English voters think of that? Might they vote for the party most likley to give them an overall majority without SNP blackmail?
Is it right to say the SNP has moved left wing? Is it right to say that left left wing, the CND wing of Scottish Labour, has leapt for the SNP?
You got: Margaret Thatcher Wicked!!! You are defined by your desire to see Britain lead in Europe and abroad. In 1975 you fought to keep Britain in Europe but towards the end of your career you became more sceptical. This didn’t stop you rounding up a famous speech in 1988 with: “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
Same for me. Put out by something called 'British Influence' which is run by Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Danny Alexander: http://www.britishinfluence.org/info
Reminds me of 'Political compass' and other such things -most of which provide a more left-wing result than anticipated unless you're channelling Herman Goering when answering.
Yes, I always seem to end up pretty monochrome when I do the Compass. I like the Goering comparison. In fact, I'm going to give it another go right now. See if I've mellowed in my old age.
It's cheap propaganda. UKIP should do their own one. Do you believe that control over UK immigration should reside with the UK? Bam - Result=UKIP.
I see what you mean, but the broad interest and appeal of these things comes from them being seen as balanced and impartial.
If anyone actually wanted to write another successful one then the way forward is to crowd-source the questions and answers/scores from somewhere like here on PB.Plenty of people have the technical skills to do it but the impartiality of the questions is the killer angle.
Perceived impartiality. The one posted here from Buzzfeed came from an organisation committed to keeping Britain in the EU, and the questions and answers are slanted accordingly. The fact that there has never been a Prime Minister who aimed to leave the EU (hence we're still in) is proof if any were needed that the mechanism is entirely slanted.
The problem for UKIP is more that they would need a sympathetic media outlet (or at least a non-hostile one) to host the quiz. Brietbart, the Express, etc.
It's a good effort but I would suggest 2 corrections for the map above: Replace the LD part of the chart with UKIP while fix the LD's at present levels and 28 seats.
That should make the down left corner purple while maintaining the strip of orange and light blue for the Lab-Lib and Con-Lib coalitions. Apart from that it's ok.
UKIP with say 5 seats would be irrelevant in any coalition building.
As much as people go on about how the mainstream parties have been ignoring the public's anti-immigration feelings until recently (a complaint that has some justification imo), it seems that wanting more cuts is an even MORE extreme position than being pro-immigration, according to that YouGov poll. Why isn't there the same outcry about the politicians ignoring the public's will on this?
Because it's a really stupid will? That would, if followed, have a scarily significant chance of hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in the country and no politicians actually want that?
We refinance debt every month. At the moment, we enjoy historically low interest rates when we do so, for a number of factors: some unusual, some less so. One of those factors is that those lending the money believe that the UK is committed to controlling the debt and deficit issue in the medium term. Should that factor go away, it may be the one that triggers the change in those historically low interest rates.
This would cause the interest payments to go upwards on all elements of rolled-over debt as they come up, as well as on new debt issued. This would, of course, simultaneously coincide with larger debt issuance than currently intended - for the very good reason that such was the explicit policy (which happened to trigger off higher interest payments).
So either we have harsher cuts and more painful tax increases (aimed at the lower earners, as the scale required would be such that this would be essential), or the debt starts to spiral out of control. That latter option is one that no-one in power will let happen whilst there's anything they can do about it. because when that sort of thing does happen and the inevitable consequences finally hit home, it's those who most rely on the Government spending who find it most painful as the props get kicked away. The poorest, sickest, most needy, most helpless elements of our society.
Of course, you could always gamble. Gamble that the power given to the bonds markets will be used as you desire (after all, running such a high deficit means that you have chosen to give them that power. When you're asking for money, you're a supplicant). Gamble that the eye of the hurricane will last forever - after all, it's lasted a while already. Gamble that there will never again be an issue with our economy such that the deficit would spike upwards in an unexpected fashion again - that we've abolished boom and bust. Gamble that picking up pennies in front of the steamroller will continue to work out for us.
Off topic, my sister gave me a late birthday present today, comprising three books: two Simon Heffer efforts and a biography of Enoch Powell, with the comment "I thought these were very much your thing".
So much for my idea that I might be some kind of liberal metropolitan.
That is precisely the issue I was thinking about earlier when reading the thread. Normally what you say is true as Labour are the best bet for tactical voting if you don't want a Tory. But that is no longer the case and if you want to follow the old tradition of keeping the Tories out of Scotland then voting SNP is the thing to do. And add to that the impact of the increasingly tarnished promises of the Vow.
What is so interesting is that the Westminster VI seems to have converged on Holyrood - almost as if everyone who votes SNP at Holyrood because they run the country well is realising they may, nay must, do so at Westminster as well. That's an oversimplification - I think tactical voting will surprise all of us some of the time in Scotland in 2015 - but bear in mind that the Holyrood system was fiddled by Labour to make sure the losers win as well (including one Ruth Davidson, who couldn't win a constituency). Westminster, on the other hand, is FPTP in a four horse race (or rather three horses and two ponies).
Thye SNP would misrepresent any so called 'vow'. Do people consider they have run the country well? They may think that a bigger SNP Westminster presence may allow more horse trading. Then again what do English voters think of that? Might they vote for the party most likley to give them an overall majority without SNP blackmail?
Is it right to say the SNP has moved left wing? Is it right to say that left left wing, the CND wing of Scottish Labour, has leapt for the SNP?
The vow has already been grossly misrepresented by the Unionists as devomax before the vote and the absolute minimum afterwards.
Re your points, I actually don't think it has moved that far left wing - it's some of the media which portray that (and it's a confused message even by their own biased purposes because it damages Labour). The presence of John Swinney as deputy is a very strong indicator. And, for instance, the SNP have not discernibly changed their policy on Trident, etc., anyway. Indeed they have slightly relaxed their views on NATO.
On Labour we don't know what has happened one way or another because they don't release membership figures, but don't forget the SSP as one option, which is strong in Glasgow, plus we could yet see an actual Labour split before the GE (depending on what happens with the leadership: that some PB Tories love one of the candidates is a very strong warning signal).
English voters can vote as they think fit, but I find it hard to believe they will vote on the basis of Scotland comapred to more immediate issues. Remember that (as above) the SNP represents a strand of thinking which is not on offer in England. And that, unlike Scottish Labour, the SNP are positively in favour of (true) EVEL and are already delivering it.
As much as people go on about how the mainstream parties have been ignoring the public's anti-immigration feelings until recently (a complaint that has some justification imo), it seems that wanting more cuts is an even MORE extreme position than being pro-immigration, according to that YouGov poll. Why isn't there the same outcry about the politicians ignoring the public's will on this?
Because it's a really stupid will? That would, if followed, have a scarily significant chance of hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in the country and no politicians actually want that?
We refinance debt every month. At the moment, we enjoy historically low interest rates when we do so, for a number of factors: some unusual, some less so. One of those factors is that those lending the money believe that the UK is committed to controlling the debt and deficit issue in the medium term. Should that factor go away, it may be the one that triggers the change in those historically low interest rates.
This would cause the interest payments to go upwards on all elements of rolled-over debt as they come up, as well as on new debt issued. This would, of course, simultaneously coincide with larger debt issuance than currently intended - for the very good reason that such was the explicit policy (which happened to trigger off higher interest payments).
So either we have harsher cuts and more painful tax increases (aimed at the lower earners, as the scale required would be such that this would be essential), or the debt starts to spiral out of control. That latter option is one that no-one in power will let happen whilst there's anything they can do about it. because when that sort of thing does happen and the inevitable consequences finally hit home, it's those who most rely on the Government spending who find it most painful as the props get kicked away. The poorest, sickest, most needy, most helpless elements of our society.
Of course, you could always gamble. Gamble that the power given to the bonds markets will be used as you desire (after all, running such a high deficit means that you have chosen to give them that power. When you're asking for money, you're a supplicant). Gamble that the eye of the hurricane will last forever - after all, it's lasted a while already. Gamble that there will never again be an issue with our economy such that the deficit would spike upwards in an unexpected fashion again - that we've abolished boom and bust. Gamble that picking up pennies in front of the steamroller will continue to work out for us.
After all, it worked out so well last time.
You have gone to a lot of trouble to explain things. Its a pity all sorts of people go round misrepesenting the effects of reducing spending and the point of it.
The PB consensus is that there will be massive anti-SNP tactical voting. Yet another bit of evidence for the dossier. They haven't got the faintest clue about Scotland.
You claimed that a high turnout in the referendum would inevitably lead to a Yes victory in the referendum. You have an atrocious record on forecasting Scottish political developments from your Swedish bungalow.
To give Stuart his due , he is not as bad at forecasting Scottish political developments as is Easterross .
When we look at Scottish polls is it worth considering possible confusion between Edingurgh and Westminster parliaments? I would have thought not but the fact remains there are the alternatives and that there is more logic in voting SNP in the Edinburgh election.
That is precisely the issue I was thinking about earlier when reading the thread. Normally what you say is true as Labour are the best bet for tactical voting if you don't want a Tory. But that is no longer the case and if you want to follow the old tradition of keeping the Tories out of Scotland then voting SNP is the thing to do. And add to that the impact of the increasingly tarnished promises of the Vow.
What is so interesting is that the Westminster VI seems to have converged on Holyrood - almost as if everyone who votes SNP at Holyrood because they run the country well is realising they may, nay must, do so at Westminster as well. That's an oversimplification - I think tactical voting will surprise all of us some of the time in Scotland in 2015 - but bear in mind that the Holyrood system was fiddled by Labour to make sure the losers win as well (including one Ruth Davidson, who couldn't win a constituency). Westminster, on the other hand, is FPTP in a four horse race (or rather three horses and two ponies).
Thye SNP would misrepresent any so called 'vow'. Do people consider they have run the country well? They may think that a bigger SNP Westminster presence may allow more horse trading. Then again what do English voters think of that? Might they vote for the party most likley to give them an overall majority without SNP blackmail?
Is it right to say the SNP has moved left wing? Is it right to say that left left wing, the CND wing of Scottish Labour, has leapt for the SNP?
PS One point: look at the diagram in the post. Only some of that necessarily involves the SNP (and PC I assume). Voting will be much more about getting Mr M or Mr C in first, and the pols can worry about the detail later.
The general consensus seems to be that Scottish Labour's support is down to 25% and that things surely can’t get much worse. Being a life-long labour supporter now supporting the SNP and living in Central Scotland, my sense is that things are about to get much worse for SLAB before they get better. I think the core 25% is going to be further reduced by the following factors:
- SNP continuing to monopolise the centre left space. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract the proportion of the female vote, which had been previously turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make inroads, as in the rest of the UK. –The SSP will also take some support away. - A bit of the LibDem resurgence once they are free from the shackles of the coalition. – SLAB will struggle to get their vote out.
Taking account all the above, we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area which would be extinction point. The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and main stream media have become.
In terms of tactical voting, I could envisage Conservatives voting SNP to add to SLAB’s woes and Greens voting SNP. I don’t envisage there being a “Unionist” alliance to try and combat the SNP, as the mainstream parties are all going to be at each other’s throats nationally.
The PB consensus is that there will be massive anti-SNP tactical voting. Yet another bit of evidence for the dossier. They haven't got the faintest clue about Scotland.
You claimed that a high turnout in the referendum would inevitably lead to a Yes victory in the referendum. You have an atrocious record on forecasting Scottish political developments from your Swedish bungalow.
To give Stuart his due , he is not as bad at forecasting Scottish political developments as is Easterross .
There speaks the man who had the LibDems gaining 20, 30 or more seats in 2010.
Remember that... unlike Scottish Labour, the SNP are positively in favour of (true) EVEL and are already delivering it.
If that is the case, it is hard to understand how the SNP could enter into a coalition with Labour, which is opposed to EVEL and would be attempting to pass England-only legislation. How could the SNP vote for legislation on the English education system, for example?
It's a good effort but I would suggest 2 corrections for the map above: Replace the LD part of the chart with UKIP while fix the LD's at present levels and 28 seats.
That should make the down left corner purple while maintaining the strip of orange and light blue for the Lab-Lib and Con-Lib coalitions. Apart from that it's ok.
UKIP with say 5 seats would be irrelevant in any coalition building.
Unless, for example, the Tories were 2 short of a majority.
Not to mention, even taking this debate on the PBTories' terms of the bond markets being all-important
Surely it's you who views them bond markets as being all important. If you run 10%+ deficits in perpetuity then you need to get the money to pay for welfare and public services from somewhere. Like the bond markets. In your world the bond markets are King because as soon as they say no to funding your deficits you are, you know, f*cked.
But why would they say no to continuing to fund a deficit of the same size as now, when they're fine with funding it now?
How did you go bust? Very slowly at first, then all in a rush...
Didn't that >90% debt inhibits growth thing get debunked when the R&R's spreadsheet got corrected? And basically once corrected there was no correlation at all?
It's a good effort but I would suggest 2 corrections for the map above: Replace the LD part of the chart with UKIP while fix the LD's at present levels and 28 seats.
That should make the down left corner purple while maintaining the strip of orange and light blue for the Lab-Lib and Con-Lib coalitions. Apart from that it's ok.
UKIP with say 5 seats would be irrelevant in any coalition building.
Unless, for example, the Tories were 2 short of a majority.
If Con is two short they'll rely on the DUP.
And if they are two short with the DUP (ie 10 short overall and DUP have 8) then there still won't be a coalition with UKIP - it'll be a minority Government.
Just as it'll be a Lab minority Government rather than a Lab / SNP coalition.
Off topic, my sister gave me a late birthday present today, comprising three books: two Simon Heffer efforts and a biography of Enoch Powell, with the comment "I thought these were very much your thing".
So much for my idea that I might be some kind of liberal metropolitan.
If you don't want them then purely in the interests of detoxifying your bookcase I'll take them off your hands
Not to mention, even taking this debate on the PBTories' terms of the bond markets being all-important
Surely it's you who views them bond markets as being all important. If you run 10%+ deficits in perpetuity then you need to get the money to pay for welfare and public services from somewhere. Like the bond markets. In your world the bond markets are King because as soon as they say no to funding your deficits you are, you know, f*cked.
But why would they say no to continuing to fund a deficit of the same size as now, when they're fine with funding it now?
How did you go bust? Very slowly at first, then all in a rush...
Didn't that >90% debt inhibits growth thing get debunked when the R&R's spreadsheet got corrected? And basically once corrected there was no correlation at all?
The ECB paper linked relies heavily on it.
Not exactly. The original spreadsheet had a massive cliff-edge on it at that point. When corrected, there was still a correlation, but the trend was far smoother and nowhere near as big.
But there was still a significant correlation. Just more like driving up a slope on grass rather than smashing into a brick wall. It is, however, still true to say that driving uphill on grass inhibits acceleration.
As much as people go on about how the mainstream parties have been ignoring the public's anti-immigration feelings until recently (a complaint that has some justification imo), it seems that wanting more cuts is an even MORE extreme position than being pro-immigration, according to that YouGov poll. Why isn't there the same outcry about the politicians ignoring the public's will on this?
Because it's a really stupid will? That would, if followed, have a scarily significant chance of hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in the country and no politicians actually want that?
We refinance debt every month. At the moment, we enjoy historically low interest rates when we do so, for a number of factors: some unusual, some less so. One of those factors is that those lending the money believe that the UK is committed to controlling the debt and deficit issue in the medium term. Should that factor go away, it may be the one that triggers the change in those historically low interest rates.
This would cause the interest payments to go upwards on all elements of rolled-over debt as they come up, as well as on new debt issued. This would,
So either we have harsher cuts and more painful tax increases (aimed at the lower earners, as the scale required would be such that this would be essential), or the debt starts to spiral out of control. That latter option is one that no-one in power will let happen whilst there's anything they can do about it. because when that sort of thing does happen and the inevitable consequences finally hit home, it's those who most rely on the Government spending who find it most painful as the props get kicked away. The poorest, sickest, most needy, most helpless elements of our society.
Of course, you could always gamble. Gamble that the power given to the bonds markets will be used as you desire (after all, running such a high deficit means that you have chosen to give them that power. When you're asking for money, you're a supplicant). Gamble that the eye of the hurricane will last forever - after all, it's lasted a while already. Gamble that there will never again be an issue with our economy such that the deficit would spike upwards in an unexpected fashion again - that we've abolished boom and bust. Gamble that picking up pennies in front of the steamroller will continue to work out for us.
After all, it worked out so well last time.
If 51% of the population wanted to invade Poland, I hope the government would still say no.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
If 51% of the population wanted to invade Poland, I hope the government would still say no.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
Poland would be a pretty easy target for invasion. Most of their male population of fighting age has already left.
The resistance and guerrilla warfare would be messy though. Their sleeper agents are already in place ready to sabotage our plumbing.
Maybe not constituency polls but Populus have combined all their polls for November (fieldwork: 5 to 27 November 2014) and have breakdowns by cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow on page 44 here:
Remember that... unlike Scottish Labour, the SNP are positively in favour of (true) EVEL and are already delivering it.
If that is the case, it is hard to understand how the SNP could enter into a coalition with Labour, which is opposed to EVEL and would be attempting to pass England-only legislation. How could the SNP vote for legislation on the English education system, for example?
The other factor is that much of the remaining Labour in Scotland - certainly the MPs and MSPs - would see it as a huge betrayal. I am not sure that the higher elements of the party would split - they would not want to lose their established career positions - but it would presumably cause intense internal struggle, rather like the Tories being forced to cooperate with the LDs - but even worse, I suspect. Consider for instance the Blairite Mr Murphy's position as SLAB leader un such an event. (On the other hand, there might not be too many SLAB MPs to worry about keeping happy if Labour were to be in that position at all.)
AndrewStuart The poll moves may take longer to filter through into poll averages, but today's polls is the first time the SNP have been under 40% for weeks
Carnyx The Smith proposals were the result of a cross-party commission on which the SNP and Greens were also represented, not just the unionist parties, and will see Scotland raise 60% of its revenue
AndrewStuart The poll moves may take longer to filter through into poll averages, but today's polls is the first time the SNP have been under 40% for weeks
We got 20% last time, so good luck trying to argue that 38% is an SNP disaster.
I went to the police to tell them my son has gone to Syria to fight with Al-Qaeda, now I'm betrayed because my terrorist son got locked up. What did she think they would do, give them a hero's welcome on their return. How about a parade?
She should be happy that he is alive.
A lot of parents of wannabe Jihadis will not have that luxury at the end of all this.
If 51% of the population wanted to invade Poland, I hope the government would still say no.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
Poland would be a pretty easy target for invasion. Most of their male population of fighting age has already left.
The resistance and guerrilla warfare would be messy though. Their sleeper agents are already in place ready to sabotage our plumbing.
Voodoo Poles will launch a seaborne invasion from their base in Haiti.
Carnyx The Smith proposals were the result of a cross-party commission on which the SNP and Greens were also represented, not just the unionist parties, and will see Scotland raise 60% of its revenue
Do you want to reword that last bit please? I think there is a mistake or two somewhere ...
AndrewStuart The poll moves may take longer to filter through into poll averages, but today's polls is the first time the SNP have been under 40% for weeks
We got 20% last time, so good luck trying to argue that 38% is an SNP disaster.
AndrewStuart The poll moves may take longer to filter through into poll averages, but today's polls is the first time the SNP have been under 40% for weeks
We got 20% last time, so good luck trying to argue that 38% is an SNP disaster.
My 5 day moving average and their associated swings give the SNP 49 out of 59 seats. Labour only 7. FPTP working heavily for SNP now. However, at 34% each , labour wins 37 - 15.
If 51% of the population wanted to invade Poland, I hope the government would still say no.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
Poland would be a pretty easy target for invasion. Most of their male population of fighting age has already left.
The resistance and guerrilla warfare would be messy though. Their sleeper agents are already in place ready to sabotage our plumbing.
It reminds me of Clarkson's Volkswagen commercial on Top Gear a few years back - From Berlin to Warsaw with one tank.
Maybe not constituency polls but Populus have combined all their polls for November (fieldwork: 5 to 27 November 2014) and have breakdowns by cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow on page 44 here:
SNP - 35% Labour - 24% Con - 25% LD - 10% Other - 6%
Total of sample 349
For Glasgow it is:
SNP - 36% Labour - 38% Con - 12% LD - 8% Other - 6%
Total of sample of 412
On basis of those swings the SNP would take 4 of the 5 seats in Edinburgh and 3 of the 7 in Glasgow.
Tories outpolling Labour in Edinburgh?? Hold on to your hats folks, this could get very ugly for SLAB.
I make it for all Scotland, SNP 36% , Labour 32%. This is by some way the best news Labour will have had for weeks. The Yougov 5 day average is 45% - 25%.
Thye SNP would misrepresent any so called 'vow'. Do people consider they have run the country well? They may think that a bigger SNP Westminster presence may allow more horse trading. Then again what do English voters think of that? Might they vote for the party most likley to give them an overall majority without SNP blackmail?
Is it right to say the SNP has moved left wing? Is it right to say that left left wing, the CND wing of Scottish Labour, has leapt for the SNP?
The vow has already been grossly misrepresented by the Unionists as devomax before the vote and the absolute minimum afterwards.
Re your points, I actually don't think it has moved that far left wing - it's some of the media which portray that (and it's a confused message even by their own biased purposes because it damages Labour). The presence of John Swinney as deputy is a very strong indicator. And, for instance, the SNP have not discernibly changed their policy on Trident, etc., anyway. Indeed they have slightly relaxed their views on NATO.
On Labour we don't know what has happened one way or another because they don't release membership figures, but don't forget the SSP as one option, which is strong in Glasgow, plus we could yet see an actual Labour split before the GE (depending on what happens with the leadership: that some PB Tories love one of the candidates is a very strong warning signal).
English voters can vote as they think fit, but I find it hard to believe they will vote on the basis of Scotland comapred to more immediate issues. Remember that (as above) the SNP represents a strand of thinking which is not on offer in England. And that, unlike Scottish Labour, the SNP are positively in favour of (true) EVEL and are already delivering it.
The English, well some English voters,might well want to vote for a party that they see as being more represented of their interests when faced with an SNP Westminster block.
I think that the devolution on offer is pretty much devo max. The SNP misrepresent 'Home Rule' and in the modern context as opposed to the limited tax and spend we had in the early 20th Cent. the recent proposals do not look too bad at all to me. From a Conservative point of view the more responsibility the Sciottish govt have then the better. But in a modern 'devomax' context the amount of borrowing on offer for instance has to be restricted and controlled since we are still one country and 90% of it has a right not to be taken for a ride.
I am quite likely wrong but it does seem to me that the way Labour instantly rejected EVEL jarred and indicated they were rejecting devomax as a consequence. It certainly jarred with me in an English context with their instinct to 'regionalise' England as an alternative.
Well, in the absence of any Survation this weekend, guess it's time to present the 7th December edition of the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). 10 polls with fieldwork end-dates between 30th Nov and 6th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 12,312:
Well, in the absence of any Survation this weekend, guess it's time to present the 7th December edition of the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). 10 polls with fieldwork end-dates between 30th Nov and 6th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 12,312:
Well, in the absence of any Survation this weekend, guess it's time to present the 7th December edition of the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). 10 polls with fieldwork end-dates between 30th Nov and 6th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 12,312:
Not much change, Lab down a touch on last week, but Tories not benefitting fully.
Interesting. My ASSS [ Adjusted Sub Samples Surbitonised ] based on 5 day regional sub samples [ Yes, yes ! I know the caveats ] gives:
Lab 31.10% Con 32.11% UKIP 15.14% LD 6.99% Grn 7.10%
On a UNS [ regional basis ], UKIP and Green have gained almost 5.3m votes between them based on the same turnout in every seat. However, statistically, they gain 0 seats.
However, we know the UKIP vote is a bit lumpy. So I will have to manually adjust their figures a little. Also, LD incumbents probably need to be given a lower swing against them.
In Scotland, the SNP is statistically on for 49 seats.
If 51% of the population wanted to invade Poland, I hope the government would still say no.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
Poland would be a pretty easy target for invasion. Most of their male population of fighting age has already left.
The resistance and guerrilla warfare would be messy though. Their sleeper agents are already in place ready to sabotage our plumbing.
Scotland would also determine most of its domestic policy as now
But you are talking here about Scottish Government spending - before, you said Scottish revenue, which is what threw me. The former is much smaller than the latter.
Bit confused, how can Clegg claim that Autumn Statement sums don't add up / Tories have to "come clean". As I understand it, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexendar have to sign everything off, so Clegg signed it off without himself not knowing how this will work / if it adds up in reality?
While it's fun, combining unvalanced subsamples doesn't reliably make them more balanced. I'd await a proper Scottish poll before drawing any conclusions.
In other news, I'm a "left moderate social libertarian"... The quiz does show the differences in US culture - things like schools teaching intelligent design (=creationism at one remove) are so far from the UK mainstream that a British quiz wouldn't bother to ask.
Mike/TheScreamingEagles, can we have a thread on the YouGov findings about how the public thinks the deficit should be dealt with (or indeed whether they think it needs to be dealt with at all)? I do think it's very notable, since it's going to be one of the top issues of the election.
Just a reminder...
Thinking about how the next government handles the deficit, which of the following best reflects your view?
They should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through cuts: 20% Should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through taxes: 19% Should NOT prioritise reducing deficit, spend more on public services or cut taxes: 36% None of these: 10% Don't know: 15%
Well, in the absence of any Survation this weekend, guess it's time to present the 7th December edition of the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). 10 polls with fieldwork end-dates between 30th Nov and 6th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 12,312:
Mike/TheScreamingEagles, can we have a thread on the YouGov findings about how the public thinks the deficit should be dealt with (or indeed whether they think it needs to be dealt with at all)? I do think it's very notable, since it's going to be one of the top issues of the election.
Just a reminder...
Thinking about how the next government handles the deficit, which of the following best reflects your view?
They should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through cuts: 20% Should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through taxes: 19% Should NOT prioritise reducing deficit, spend more on public services or cut taxes: 36% None of these: 10% Don't know: 15%
Bit confused, how can Clegg claim that Autumn Statement sums don't add up / Tories have to "come clean". As I understand it, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexendar have to sign everything off, so Clegg signed it off without himself not knowing how this will work / if it adds up in reality?
While it's fun, combining unvalanced subsamples doesn't reliably make them more balanced. I'd await a proper Scottish poll before drawing any conclusions.
In other news, I'm a "left moderate social libertarian"... The quiz does show the differences in US culture - things like schools teaching intelligent design (=creationism at one remove) are so far from the UK mainstream that a British quiz wouldn't bother to ask.
Unfortunately, intelligent design isn't creationism at one remove, it is merely creationism by another name.
Bit confused, how can Clegg claim that Autumn Statement sums don't add up / Tories have to "come clean". As I understand it, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexendar have to sign everything off, so Clegg signed it off without himself not knowing how this will work / if it adds up in reality?
The BBC uncritically report Clegg and the IFS - they do it because they have a left wing bias they do it because they are ignorant and they do it because they are simply bad journalists.
As some others have pointed out the truth is a bit different. Difficult but quite definitely different - To quote Times economic writer David Smith again - ''that 80-year figure. Even if it were useful to use it, it would mean that, since the economy is six times the size it was in the 1930s, the government is aiming for a real level of public spending which is also six times what it was then.'' ''a better measure of the squeeze on day-to-day spending is public sector current expenditure, which is mainly the spending on public services. This also needs to come down, to 32.7% of GDP to eliminate the deficit and 31.9% to achieve a 1% surplus. You also have to go back into history for times when this measure of spending was this low. It was 32.4% in 1973-4 and 31.1% in 1972-3. The economy, by the way, is roughly 2.5 times the size it was then.'' ''I bow to nobody in my respect for the IFS but I think that is overstating it. Public spending on this measure has come down from its peak of 40% of GDP in 2009-10 to an estimated 36.9% this year and a projected 36% in 2015-16. Reducing it further, by just over three percentage points of GDP to eliminate the deficit, will be very hard but it is not impossible.'' ''There may be a small role for higher taxes in cutting the deficit but it would be wrong to think there is much. One lesson of the past 25 years is that it is hard to get tax receipts much above 36% of GDP.''
It's clear that the sums can add up. The BBC is being disingenuous in too easily revelling in political controversy rather than doing the heavy spadework of informative journalism.
Has the top right of Martin's chart been left intentionally blank?
Yes
It is about an area where the big 2 are over 72%, I think, which isn't going to happen.
Others are fixed at 28% in Baxter's chart, so the blank area corresponds to negative Lib Dem scores. Clegg is giving it a great shot, but electoral law is against him on this one.
Well, in the absence of any Survation this weekend, guess it's time to present the 7th December edition of the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). 10 polls with fieldwork end-dates between 30th Nov and 6th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 12,312:
OGH National poll shares do matter in the sense that Cameron needs to have a clear Tory national lead to remain in No 10, if not Miliband will be there one way or another, whether with a majority, coalition or minority government
Bit confused, how can Clegg claim that Autumn Statement sums don't add up / Tories have to "come clean". As I understand it, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexendar have to sign everything off, so Clegg signed it off without himself not knowing how this will work / if it adds up in reality?
What kind of coalition is this ?
One that has lasted nearly 5 years despite many on here forecasting it would collapse by Oct 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 and some saying all of those .
The Tories have launched a nasty dirty tricks campaign in a knife-edge constituency ahead of the next election.
Conservative activists are ringing voters in marginal Wells and pretending to be calling on behalf of the respected local Lib-Dem MP Tessa Munt.
----
Hmm
I shouldn't think OGH or any other lib dem on here will mind... They didn't criticise the Tories for trying dirty tricks on Ukip in Thurrock and Rochester. As honourable men, they wouldn't be so hypocritical to only pass judgement when it affects their side
Granted, we aren't running the country (supposedly).
A Norwegian MP got into trouble for playing a wargame during a debate on whether Norway should send fighter planes to Afghanistan. Not sure he was testing a simulation...
I really don't get all this hype about Chuka. He never impresses me on the tv, very very slippery (probably why Tony likes him), but what genius policy ideas has he proposed, how often does he really manage to cause the coalition serious trouble, etc?
Sure he is always all over tv, but that doesn't make you great.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
Comments
In the 90s/00s Lib/Lab tactical voting worked well as it was a case of vote for a party you quite like to stop a party you hate.
Now the message is vote for one party you hate to stop another party you hate.
In Rochester, it turned about that more Lab supporters hated the Cons than UKIP.
Who do SCON supporters hate more - SLAB or SNP? My guess is that currently more hate the old enemy than the new one. Possibly this might change for 2020/2021 if the SNP becomes unpopular.
Cheers HYUFD, I'll give this one a go.
What is the point of right wing nationalists voting SNP if it has moved even to the left of Labour and in unilateralist? Would 'tory' nationalists continue to believe in the viability of an independent Scotland now?
What is so interesting is that the Westminster VI seems to have converged on Holyrood - almost as if everyone who votes SNP at Holyrood because they run the country well is realising they may, nay must, do so at Westminster as well. That's an oversimplification - I think tactical voting will surprise all of us some of the time in Scotland in 2015 - but bear in mind that the Holyrood system was fiddled by Labour to make sure the losers win as well (including one Ruth Davidson, who couldn't win a constituency). Westminster, on the other hand, is FPTP in a four horse race (or rather three horses and two ponies).
Seriously, an interesting piece of work.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
But I'm wishing I could have put together something like this map, even though I don't agree with every detail.
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_November_2014-2.pdf
For Edinburgh it is:
SNP - 35%
Labour - 24%
Con - 25%
LD - 10%
Other - 6%
Total of sample 349
For Glasgow it is:
SNP - 36%
Labour - 38%
Con - 12%
LD - 8%
Other - 6%
Total of sample of 412
On basis of those swings the SNP would take 4 of the 5 seats in Edinburgh and 3 of the 7 in Glasgow.
Well that was five mins of my life telling me something I knew
Thanks again.
Flightpath Indeed, while a few rightwing nationalists may have voted for the more business friendly and tax cutting Salmond, even they may balk at Sturgeon
Carnyx The SNP is on 38% today after Smith's report, slightly less than earlier weeks
10 million to me
If we are in the Nats/Con coalition space post election then there is likely to be a minority government of some sort, if the Nats don't play ball.
http://i61.tinypic.com/243oolk.jpg
Love the graphic, although surely C&S is far more likely for the Nats than going into coalition?
Not sure that nationalist parties have very often gone into the central government (don't think they have in either Spain or Canada for example).
For anyone who would like to play, the Japan game is now available - entries close at 9pm on Saturday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/japan14/
Game includes opinion polls plus links to English-language Japanese news sites.
Many thanks,
DC
I see what you mean, but the broad interest and appeal of these things comes from them being seen as balanced and impartial.
If anyone actually wanted to write another successful one then the way forward is to crowd-source the questions and answers/scores from somewhere like here on PB.Plenty of people have the technical skills to do it but the impartiality of the questions is the killer angle.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/489888/#Comment_489888
Is it right to say the SNP has moved left wing? Is it right to say that left left wing, the CND wing of Scottish Labour, has leapt for the SNP?
The problem for UKIP is more that they would need a sympathetic media outlet (or at least a non-hostile one) to host the quiz. Brietbart, the Express, etc.
We refinance debt every month. At the moment, we enjoy historically low interest rates when we do so, for a number of factors: some unusual, some less so. One of those factors is that those lending the money believe that the UK is committed to controlling the debt and deficit issue in the medium term. Should that factor go away, it may be the one that triggers the change in those historically low interest rates.
This would cause the interest payments to go upwards on all elements of rolled-over debt as they come up, as well as on new debt issued. This would, of course, simultaneously coincide with larger debt issuance than currently intended - for the very good reason that such was the explicit policy (which happened to trigger off higher interest payments).
So either we have harsher cuts and more painful tax increases (aimed at the lower earners, as the scale required would be such that this would be essential), or the debt starts to spiral out of control. That latter option is one that no-one in power will let happen whilst there's anything they can do about it. because when that sort of thing does happen and the inevitable consequences finally hit home, it's those who most rely on the Government spending who find it most painful as the props get kicked away. The poorest, sickest, most needy, most helpless elements of our society.
Of course, you could always gamble. Gamble that the power given to the bonds markets will be used as you desire (after all, running such a high deficit means that you have chosen to give them that power. When you're asking for money, you're a supplicant). Gamble that the eye of the hurricane will last forever - after all, it's lasted a while already. Gamble that there will never again be an issue with our economy such that the deficit would spike upwards in an unexpected fashion again - that we've abolished boom and bust. Gamble that picking up pennies in front of the steamroller will continue to work out for us.
After all, it worked out so well last time.
So much for my idea that I might be some kind of liberal metropolitan.
Re your points, I actually don't think it has moved that far left wing - it's some of the media which portray that (and it's a confused message even by their own biased purposes because it damages Labour). The presence of John Swinney as deputy is a very strong indicator. And, for instance, the SNP have not discernibly changed their policy on Trident, etc., anyway. Indeed they have slightly relaxed their views on NATO.
On Labour we don't know what has happened one way or another because they don't release membership figures, but don't forget the SSP as one option, which is strong in Glasgow, plus we could yet see an actual Labour split before the GE (depending on what happens with the leadership: that some PB Tories love one of the candidates is a very strong warning signal).
English voters can vote as they think fit, but I find it hard to believe they will vote on the basis of Scotland comapred to more immediate issues. Remember that (as above) the SNP represents a strand of thinking which is not on offer in England. And that, unlike Scottish Labour, the SNP are positively in favour of (true) EVEL and are already delivering it.
You have gone to a lot of trouble to explain things.
Its a pity all sorts of people go round misrepesenting the effects of reducing spending and the point of it.
The ECB paper linked relies heavily on it.
And if they are two short with the DUP (ie 10 short overall and DUP have 8) then there still won't be a coalition with UKIP - it'll be a minority Government.
Just as it'll be a Lab minority Government rather than a Lab / SNP coalition.
Thanks mike/martin
The original spreadsheet had a massive cliff-edge on it at that point. When corrected, there was still a correlation, but the trend was far smoother and nowhere near as big.
But there was still a significant correlation. Just more like driving up a slope on grass rather than smashing into a brick wall. It is, however, still true to say that driving uphill on grass inhibits acceleration.
Sometimes one has to argue against pursuing a disastrous course of action. And if the people are committed to a disastrous course of action, they can always elect a different government.
The resistance and guerrilla warfare would be messy though. Their sleeper agents are already in place ready to sabotage our plumbing.
A lot of parents of wannabe Jihadis will not have that luxury at the end of all this.
Though I doubt SNP will go below 36%.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21635076-scotland-gains-control-over-income-tax-tax-heaven
Scotland would also determine most of its domestic policy as now
The SNP total 38% and the Greens 7%, surprise, surprise, that makes 45%
It is about an area where the big 2 are over 72%, I think, which isn't going to happen.
That's more like it
I think that the devolution on offer is pretty much devo max. The SNP misrepresent 'Home Rule' and in the modern context as opposed to the limited tax and spend we had in the early 20th Cent. the recent proposals do not look too bad at all to me. From a Conservative point of view the more responsibility the Sciottish govt have then the better. But in a modern 'devomax' context the amount of borrowing on offer for instance has to be restricted and controlled since we are still one country and 90% of it has a right not to be taken for a ride.
I am quite likely wrong but it does seem to me that the way Labour instantly rejected EVEL jarred and indicated they were rejecting devomax as a consequence. It certainly jarred with me in an English context with their instinct to 'regionalise' England as an alternative.
Lab 32.9% (-0.5)
Con 31.4% (+0.2)
UKIP 16.1% (-0.2)
LD 7.3% (nc)
Lab lead 1.5% (-0.6)
Changes from first ever ELBOW on 17th Aug:
Lab -3.3%
Con -1.7%
UKIP +3.0%
LD -1.4%
Lab lead -1.6% (ie. was 3.1, now 1.5)
Take-home:
Not much change, Lab down a touch on last week, but Tories not benefitting fully.
Everyone's Lethally Bored Of Wailways :-)
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2
Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) update 7th Dec: Lab 32.9%, Con 31.4%, UKIP 16.1%, LD 7.3%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/541711593332297728?lang=en-gb
Left: 3.55, Authoritarian: 0.26
Interesting. I suppose my religious views and political liberalism counterbalanced each other.
Lab 31.10%
Con 32.11%
UKIP 15.14%
LD 6.99%
Grn 7.10%
On a UNS [ regional basis ], UKIP and Green have gained almost 5.3m votes between them
based on the same turnout in every seat. However, statistically, they gain 0 seats.
However, we know the UKIP vote is a bit lumpy. So I will have to manually adjust their figures a little. Also, LD incumbents probably need to be given a lower swing against them.
In Scotland, the SNP is statistically on for 49 seats.
Next SLAB leader
Jim Murphy 1/4 (Bet365, Ladbrokes)
Neil Findlay 7/2 (BetVictor)
Sarah Boyack 25/1 (various)
In other news, I'm a "left moderate social libertarian"... The quiz does show the differences in US culture - things like schools teaching intelligent design (=creationism at one remove) are so far from the UK mainstream that a British quiz wouldn't bother to ask.
Laughable....He has only been on the sidelines a few days...
Why isn't he just honest and say that he enjoys being a politician, the power, the financial rewards etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Just a reminder...
Thinking about how the next government handles the deficit, which of the following best reflects your view?
They should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through cuts: 20%
Should prioritise reducing deficit, mainly through taxes: 19%
Should NOT prioritise reducing deficit, spend more on public services or cut taxes: 36%
None of these: 10%
Don't know: 15%
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/juhk980ke8/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-051214.pdf
Is entitled "Which one of Dave or Ed will be cursing "It's the economy stupid" next May.
You can strike at least one of them off.
'Former first minister Alex Salmond has said he will donate one of his salaries to charity if he is elected as an MP next May.'
http://tinyurl.com/lfoqjwt
http://creationmuseum.org/
As some others have pointed out the truth is a bit different. Difficult but quite definitely different -
To quote Times economic writer David Smith again -
''that 80-year figure. Even if it were useful to use it, it would mean that, since the economy is six times the size it was in the 1930s, the government is aiming for a real level of public spending which is also six times what it was then.''
''a better measure of the squeeze on day-to-day spending is public sector current expenditure, which is mainly the spending on public services. This also needs to come down, to 32.7% of GDP to eliminate the deficit and 31.9% to achieve a 1% surplus. You also have to go back into history for times when this measure of spending was this low. It was 32.4% in 1973-4 and 31.1% in 1972-3. The economy, by the way, is roughly 2.5 times the size it was then.''
''I bow to nobody in my respect for the IFS but I think that is overstating it. Public spending on this measure has come down from its peak of 40% of GDP in 2009-10 to an estimated 36.9% this year and a projected 36% in 2015-16. Reducing it further, by just over three percentage points of GDP to eliminate the deficit, will be very hard but it is not impossible.''
''There may be a small role for higher taxes in cutting the deficit but it would be wrong to think there is much. One lesson of the past 25 years is that it is hard to get tax receipts much above 36% of GDP.''
It's clear that the sums can add up. The BBC is being disingenuous in too easily revelling in political controversy rather than doing the heavy spadework of informative journalism.
I've been donating my second salary to charity for the last 42 years.
OGH National poll shares do matter in the sense that Cameron needs to have a clear Tory national lead to remain in No 10, if not Miliband will be there one way or another, whether with a majority, coalition or minority government
The Tories have launched a nasty dirty tricks campaign in a knife-edge constituency ahead of the next election.
Conservative activists are ringing voters in marginal Wells and pretending to be calling on behalf of the respected local Lib-Dem MP Tessa Munt.
----
Hmm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4Sg0_9CQAEjrVh.jpg:large
Granted, we aren't running the country (supposedly).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-wants-chuka-umunna-to-be-the-next-labour-leader-9908489.html
Sure he is always all over tv, but that doesn't make you great.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterTatchell?p=s
Possibly might have something to do with this letter he wrote back in the day:
https://mobile.twitter.com/1jamiefoster/status/541535243329863680/photo/1