Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Jim Murphy as first Scottish poll following his el
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Jim Murphy as first Scottish poll following his election has LAB trailing by 24 points
New Scottish poll for D Record has SNP with a commanding lead
SNP 48%
LAB 24%
CON 16%
LD 5%
UKIP 4%
GRN 1%
http://t.co/y4VurJDCBG
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uks-immigration-system-now-in-intensive-care-theresa-may-is-warned-9936921.html
Britain’s immigration system is now in “intensive care”, MPs have warned, painting a damning picture of multiple blunders by the Home Office.
Disclosing that nearly 400,000 immigration cases were unresolved, the Commons home affairs select committee warned that the Government's broken promise to slash migration levels had undermined public confidence in the system.
It condemned the Home Office’s “inexcusable” failure to deport more foreign prisoners and expressed “serious doubts” over whether it would hit its target to introduce full exit checks at ports and airports by April.
The Home Secretary’s frequent delays in releasing reports by the independent Chief Inspector of Immigration – highlighted by the Independent last month – was also attacked as “unacceptable”.
The MPs said the number of missing migrants had reached 89,000 while the Home Office faced a separate backlog of 304,222 visa applications.
Nuclear 33.09%
Wind 19.28%
Coal 19.89%
CCGT 10.31%
Biomass 4.65%
Hydro 3.02%
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Where is that coming from?
The Survation datasets for all respondents show 438 yes, 482 no unweighted (47.6% yes). The weighted totals are 411 yes, 509 no (44.7% yes). So the respondents were slightly biased towards yes, but Survation have adjusted the poll for that.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/December-Scotland-Daily-Record-Scottish-Voting-Intention-ONE.pdf
His more difficult problem is appealing to yes voters who have previously voted Labour (or Lib Dem). This group appear to have largely moved to the SNP. Appointing someone as leader who was closely associated with Better Together would not superficially appear to be the best way of doing this. He has to find some way of disassociating yes support from SNP support.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/304336-half-of-businesses-plan-to-hire-more-workers-in-2015-cbi-study-finds/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11303986/North-Sea-could-lose-15000-jobs-if-oil-continues-to-fall-warns-Sir-Ian-Wood.html
'England':
the survey also shows that English people would be in favour of the UK Government taking a much tougher stance on Scotland if it decides to say in the Union.
Most of those polled (56 per cent) agreed that public spending in Scotland should be reduced to the UK average following a No vote, while the vast majority (63 per cent) believe that Scottish MPs should be prevented from voting on English laws in the future.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html
I regard most at any rate, of those from whom my opinions differ as mistaken, not malevolent!
This is bad news for Nats as investment will in all likelihood be lower than if the Indyref had settled the matter so Scots will have fewer jobs.
It's also bad news for Unionists as a sub optimum Scotland will only feed the Nat narrative of we'd do a better job alone.
A vicious circle.
I wonder if Labour are saving to fight two GEs like the Tories?
In the event of a hung Parliament the political classes will have to think outside the conventional box. Running a second election “because the electorate didn’t get it right first time" is rarely a good idea. Didn’t work 100 years ago, nor in 1951, nor really in 1974. Did in 1966, because the initiative was with the then Government. After Oct 1974 the Government clung on for 5 years but largely due to alliances, overt or covert, with minor parties, and initially a somewhat demoralised opposition.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-2-labour-vs-snp.html
The SNP are campaigning for 'an end to Tory cuts' - how could they support Labour ones? (tho what we'll see post 2015 is nothing compared to what an independent Scotland would be facing - but facts rarely detain our nationalist friends).
So, if Labour are not in a majority, who is going to vote through their first budget?
The SNP / Holyrood government has one great advantage. It only spends money. For the time being, it does not collect any. Therefore, it can be Santa Klaus all year round. Where it can't do, it just blames the "aenglish" for the austerity budget.
Of course, the concept of a nationhood is also a huge plus psychologically.
What does a patriotic Glasgow council estate dweller do now ?
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/December-Scotland-Daily-Record-Scottish-Voting-Intention-ONE.pdf
doesn't at first sight bear out JamesMo' comment that there are lots of doubtful voters - it's only 14%, not unusually high. But it's noticeable that nearly all of them (9 out of 10) were "no" voters, so presumably more open to Murphy (though note that a sixth of the SNP voters were "no" voters too). If, say, half were to vote Labour, a tenth SNP and the rest didn't vote, it would reduce the SNP lead by 5.5%, which would save some seats but still leave the SNP well ahead.
Antifrank: This is the conundrum. If one follows Survation, Labour could end up with single figure seats. But why doesn't the canny Scot punters "on the ground" follow that logic ?
Labour losing only 3 seats ? Huh ?
Agree entirely on the Scottish business comments. Uncertainty is bad for business. The question mark should've disappeared now but a combination of the ill-advised Vow nonsense and the SNP deciding that 'once in a generation' could mean 'once every few years' means that the question mark remains.
So, if the two "English" parties work together, then bye bye Scotland. Even the SNP will not need to do anything.
I suggested on here a few months ago that it was possible that the result of the next election would be a grand coalition of Conservative and Labour, because the mathematics of any other combination would not work. Nobody was very keen on the idea (frankly, I'm not keen on it myself). But right here, right now, can anyone see a plausible government that doesn't involve both of the main parties?
Labour - sinking in the polls. Handicapped by their leader's personal unpopularity. Under threat in Scotland. Need to make a net gain of 70 seats to win office on their own.
Conservatives: not doing well in the polls. While they might tick up, it seems unlikely they will tick up far enough. Need to win another 20-25 seats to gain power, something no governing party has managed in 32 years. Their leader isn't a liability, but he isn't exactly an asset. Haemorrhaging support to UKIP, especially that all-important lower-middle-class support in the Midlands and South.
Liberal Democrats - almost bound to lose seats, even if not as many as predicted. If they have under 30, it's hard to see how they can form a two-party coalition.
SNP - unlikely to have enough seats to prop up Labour alone, on current figures. Even if they do, it's hard to see how they would either (a) support nationwide cuts that will undoubtedly negatively affect their popularity in Scotland, or (b) be able to force advantageous pro-Scottish legislation through without provoking actual rioting south of the border, which might cause the government and even the UK to collapse.
Democratic Unionists - unlikely that their 8-10 seats could prop up the Conservatives.
Other NI - as above.
Plaid Cymru, Greens, UKIP - might have 10 seats between them.
That doesn't leave many options. It would however leave an enormous amount of uncertainty, which wouldn't be good for anybody. Realistically, a grand coalition along the lines of 1931 might be the only option to prevent a crisis.
But - would the supporters take it (let's ignore the politicians, we all know that they would be willing to deal with each other)? My guess is the Conservatives would, on the basis that they will be willing to hang on to power at any price after so many years in the wilderness, but not Labour and particularly not in Scotland and Wales. It would be seen as a terrible betrayal and would lead to political annihilation at the general election following.
So maybe we should think about, in that case, what becomes of (a) the UK, bearing in mind Labour are the last truly national party and (b) what might replace Labour if they were smashed - if anybody could, at once?
Feel free to disagree - but if Scotland goes SNP, that's the can of worms that I can see being opened in Westminster.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
In round terms the tax will fall from about £5bn to maybe £2.5bn. To put it into perspective that is roughly £500 a head for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Or to put it another way this alone would have been enough to bring average public spending in Scotland from comfortably above England to something below it.
In most other political matters a party that was so rapidly demonstrated to have been so stunningly incompetent and dishonest would have something of a problem. But not here, apparently. It was always obvious that those voting yes were not much interested in the subject of economics. That apparent indifference is reaching new levels. Sad and dangerous.
If the SNP sweeps the board in Scotland it's hard to see Labour getting an outright majority. Which means [assuming no second election]:
Lab-SNP
Lab-Lib
Con-Lib
The first of those would mean we'd have not only Scottish MPs but an avowedly separatist party imposing their will on English matters, when said matters are devolved to Scotland. It's hard to think of anything that would antagonise the English more [joining the euro, perhaps].
The second two would both be English (and Welsh) coalitions. That may, as you suggest, not go down well in a Scotland which has voted overwhelmingly for the SNP.
:tumbleweed:
As far as I can see from the poll details, the Scottish Greens are on 1%. This seems very very low considering the surge going on elsewhere in UK.
Must dash - have got an inset.
Things are clearly different north of the border. I don't think its wise to look at them from a southern viewpoint and claim that the figures make no sense. A large anti-Westminster vote focussed on the SNP seems perfectly rational to me and as I stated before the continual announcements that the SNP won't work with the Conservatives makes Scottish Labour's election task all the harder.
Lab down 10 over the year.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/12/15/happy-birthday-to-us/
There is only really a crisis if budgetary bills can't be passed which seems unlikely. Other legislation can wait (and indeed IMHO most of it these days is nonsense designed to make it appear that the governing party is doing something about some issue or other).
Much as we fall out over your love of the NHS, and while it may seem that I don't care for it nothing could be further from the truth, I am really excited about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30558112
The short term costs in terms of R&D will be huge but long term it will be both a massive benefit and saving.
At this point I wonder if Lab and Con wouldn't be too scared of UKIP to call a new election. The next election will probably be a bit of a tactical mess, because nobody will know how high their waterline will be, and the voters won't be able to work out which seats they're in contention in. But once you have an election the tactical situation becomes much clearer, and quite a few incumbents in what they'd always thought would be safe seats will be scared of losing them.
The way for Lab and Con to avoid this fate would be a Grand Coalition, although it potentially gives them an even worse problem five years down the road.
A Con-Sinn Fein coalition would be a surprise.
I think you're being complacent regarding how a Lab-SNP coalition would go down in England, particularly if Labour decides to bugger up English devolution with regional nonsense.
Labour wants a tax rise and spending cut mix to reduce the deficit. Tax rises in England will be voted through thanks to Scottish votes. Not sure that'll go down terribly well.
That said their respective bases wouldn't be happy, and it would be much easier to explain to them if they'd already had a second election resulting in the same stalemate as the first.
SNP will form a coalition / support Labour: the party that is least willing to give meaningful devolution.
UKIP may support Labour: the party that is least likely to offer an in out referendum.
Makes you wonder what the real motives of all these charlatans are.
It shows a massive boost to labour early in, all from the lib dems... In the following three years Ukip have taken almost all those votes leaving labour back where they started and the lib dems nowhere
* Scotland only polls consistently show SNP heading for a landslide, as do the subsamples of many UK polls;
* Wales only polls show Labour no better placed than 2010;
* Ashcroft marginals show the Con-Lab swing down to 3%, with the majority of seats recently polled showing a decline in Labour's 2010 vote;
* Repeat constituency polls in Grimsby, Dudley, Brighton, Stockton have all shown 10 point lead reductions (or seat losses) for Labour in just over six months
* By election and PCC results have seen Labour struggle to hold their vote in Yorkshire and Lancashire, whilst wiped out of the contests in Newark, Rochester, Clacton.
It's only culturally diverse London that seems to buck the trend.
How they are meant to be 5-7 points up nationally is a mystery.
I think you're entirely wrong. If we end up with a Lab-SNP Coalition then we'll see how things play out. [NB, I'm not expecting immediate uproar, but a gradually rising sense of resentment and bitterness, with various flashpoints].
Mind you, supply and confidence may be more likely than formal coalition.
After all, if they fail to win a Yes vote in Scotland, next try is a Yes vote in England (on a motion to throw the Scots out).
I reckon that is how Salmond is thinking.
1) To those who think a Grand Coalition is out of the question, who would have expected to see a coalition of Newcastle and Sunderland supporters uniting yesterday for the MH17 victims? Circumstances can lead to unexpected outcomes.
2) Just had the thought of Lib Dems and DUP in the same coalition. Never! Never! Never!
3) Why does Mrs May get away with shambles after shambles at the Home Office? Any other Home Sec would have resigned five times over since 2010.
I don't think this will happen, but if the national polls settle back to leads of 5 to 7 I'm sure we'll see something similar in other constituency polls, at least in England. England is very big, so you don't need a humungous swing to cancel out serious losses in Scotland.
Electricity represents just 15% of the UK's energy consumption, therefore wind and nuclear are providing around 8% of our energy.
Oil rout would have wrecked an independent Scotland’s finance
Scotland’s North Sea revenues would have slumped to one fifth of Holyrood’s preferred forecasts in its first year of independence if Scots had voted Yes in September, according to an Office for Budget Responsibility simulation using current oil prices.
Had Scotland voted Yes to independence, it would now be looking at oil revenues of £1.25bn instead of £6.9bn in 2016-17 — its first year as a new country — while facing a deficit of close to 6 per cent of national income, compared with a UK forecast of 2.1 per cent.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d97d49ce-877d-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3McMWWNIm