Carnyx So more than double the No voters think the Smith proposals go too far than not far enough, overall 9% more think they go far enough or too far than not far enough
I shall cast my vote in Edinburgh South, which is a Labour/Libdem marginal. In 2010 it was L/LD/C/SNP/G: 35/34/22/8/2. My personal preferences are, in order, C/LD/L/G/S, probably fairly typical for a right-inclined voter. Though Conservatives generally abhor tactical voting, here is a good case for tactically voting LibDem: "minimax regret", i.e. the least worst outcome, may be the best we can achieve. This constituency could be of interest to the bettors on here – can one find odds somewhere? (btw Edinburgh voted 61.1% No in the Indyref).
How do you feel about tactically voting for Labour?
That's a good example of something I wanted to raise more generally. As in the referendum campaign, we're hearing much more from the SNP side, but there was a No majority and the polls still show the SNP to be a minority of the electorate. If the non-SNP vote splits all over the place, the SNP will romp home. Is anyone trying to organise a "Unionist tactical vote" operation, and would unionist voters be up for it? For example, it'd be awfully tempting for a Unionist in Gordon to vote for whoever seemed likely to have a shot at stopping Salmond being their MP. My impression, though, is that the only serious tactical vote action in Britain is the Lib<->Lab vote, which gsthers behind the stronger candidate with impressive discipline. It's not obvious that anyone else has got seriously into it.
Any sign Nick of your party switching resources from England to save SLAB?
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
Remember when the polls suggested that Yes and No at the Indyref would be almost neck and neck (or at most a few % apart)? No won by 10% in the end...
Actually slightly more than 10%.
55.3% NO
44.7% YES
It's piquant to think how nations can divide or unit based on such small differences.
If NO had got just 4.7% more, then they'd have won 60/40 and another referendum would be inconceivable for 20 years.
If YES had got just 5.3% more, the UK would now be finished, and the rUK in crisis, as Scotland would be staring at immediate sovereign default.
My guess is that any referendum before, say, 2020 at least, would produce an entirely similar result to 2014. A fairly narrow but very definite NO win. The political climate in Scotland has changed, but economic reality has not.
Actually, my point was merely that the polls were a wee bit inaccurate regarding Indyref - they could well be regarding the SNP v. SLab battle in May.
I've just popped into the Co-Op in the next village to buy some Fursty Ferret. They've got effing Easter chocolates on display! It's the fecking day after Boxing Day, for pity's sake!
Carnyx So more than double the No voters think the Smith proposals go too far than not far enough, overall 9% more think they go far enough or too far than not far enough
But add that percentage of the 55% to the 45% who wanted indy, and you have a majority not happy with the Smith Commission proposals - never mind what fraction of them is actually given.
And that was a good point you made re the EU and Scotland keeping the Kippers of (mostly) England in the EU - bit of a dilemma for them there.
Carnyx Of all Scots you only have a majority unhappy with the proposals if you add the 13% who think they got too far to the 30% who think they go far enough, obviously illogical when many of that 13% will want the Scottish Parliament scrapped and full powers restored to Westminster
I've just popped into the Co-Op in the next village to buy some Fursty Ferret. They've got effing Easter chocolates on display! It's the fecking day after Boxing Day, for pity's sake!
Carnyx Indeed, Scotland staying in the UK ironically also means it is more likely England and Wales stay in the EU, which is obviously a dilemma for some Kippers
Any UK Government is likely to refuse to agree to a further referendum before circa 2040 on the basis that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Salmond did say that it was 'a once in a generation opportunity'. Is he not a man of his word?
Any UK Government is likely to refuse to agree to a further referendum before circa 2040 on the basis that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Salmond did say that it was 'a once in a generation opportunity'. Is he not a man of his word?
Who will be the next UK generation to vote on our relationship with Europe?
Any UK Government is likely to refuse to agree to a further referendum before circa 2040 on the basis that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Salmond did say that it was 'a once in a generation opportunity'. Is he not a man of his word?
Nothing to do with him. If the Scots want one they will have one.
Carnyx Of all Scots you only have a majority unhappy with the proposals if you add the 13% who think they got too far to the 30% who think they go far enough, obviously illogical when many of that 13% will want the Scottish Parliament scrapped and full powers restored to Westminster
What price Fitalass and Carlotta are part of the 13% ?
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
Err The Conservatives are not being replaced as the lead party in those areas. Labour are under a real and present danger of being almost wiped out in a stronghold that they have had for 30+ years.
We will see when that happens. Parties adapt. Tories received more tha 50% of the votes in 1955. Today they receive 15%.
Labour has to have three distinct campaigns: winnning marginals in England, saving its bacon in Scotland, on the back foot aboutthe NHS in Wales. These will produce inevitable stresses and inconsistencies whichthe Tories should be able to use to good effect in England.
Labour has so far shown little to no evidence that it can mount one effective campaign under Ed. The idea it can do three looks well beyond its capability.
I remain firmly of the view that the campaign will prove disastrous for Labour. I also remain of the view that the SNP is the only party which has a message that unites the Yes voters and the No-but-more-Devomax-please voters. I can see them getting 50% of the Scottish vote in May.
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
Err The Conservatives are not being replaced as the lead party in those areas. Labour are under a real and present danger of being almost wiped out in a stronghold that they have had for 30+ years.
We will see when that happens. Parties adapt. Tories received more tha 50% of the votes in 1955. Today they receive 15%.
If all Labour gain is 10 or so from the Conservatives, only gain 5 from LDs, but lose 30 to the SNP, Labour will be in a perilous state and Miliband would have to resign.
Carnyx Of all Scots you only have a majority unhappy with the proposals if you add the 13% who think they got too far to the 30% who think they go far enough, obviously illogical when many of that 13% will want the Scottish Parliament scrapped and full powers restored to Westminster
"First of all, it appears that many voters are none too sure either way about the proposals; as many as 31% say that they just do not know whether the proposals went too far or not far enough, perhaps because ICM used a wording that (unlike YouGov’s) acknowledged that respondents might not have heard much about them. Meanwhile, even though respondents were advised that the proposals entailed ‘extensive new powers over income tax’, those who say the proposals are ‘about right’, 26%, are still outnumbered (albeit less so than in YouGov’s poll) by those (30%) who think they ‘do not go far enough’. At the same time another 13% feel they ‘go too far’. Only 12% of those who voted Yes in September believe the proposals are about right, suggesting their unveiling has so far done little to erode support for independence. But even those who voted No in September give the package a pretty lukewarm reception; only 38% think the proposals are about right, not much more than the combined proportion of those who think they go far (22%) or not far enough (9%)."
Hmm ... point taken. Looking at it again,
60% of the No voters reckoned that the proposals were OK or too far - 33% of all voters, crudely (very crudely, as the 31% DK figure is 2x the Indyref abstention figure). .
12% of the Yes voters think OK or too far - 5%. That's about 38% of all voters. Deduct the 31% don't know, leaving 31% who think not far enough.
Quite a big DK margin though and we need to see how reality bites as opposed to the media promises of devomax.
Any UK Government is likely to refuse to agree to a further referendum before circa 2040 on the basis that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Salmond did say that it was 'a once in a generation opportunity'. Is he not a man of his word?
Nothing to do with him. If the Scots want one they will have one.
Are you contemplating the possibility of UDI then? Surely that could be a recipe for the beginning of civil war. After all, Cameron - and Westminster - had to agree to the 2014 referendum!
Carnyx So more than double the No voters think the Smith proposals go too far than not far enough, overall 9% more think they go far enough or too far than not far enough
But add that percentage of the 55% to the 45% who wanted indy, and you have a majority not happy with the Smith Commission proposals - never mind what fraction of them is actually given.
And that was a good point you made re the EU and Scotland keeping the Kippers of (mostly) England in the EU - bit of a dilemma for them there.
No, that's wrong, or at least you are wilfully misinterpreting. The indyref result is irrelevant.
30% of voters believe the Smith proposals don't go far enough 26% of voters think they are fine 13% think they go too far
(the rest, it seems, don't know - hardly surprising at this early stage)
So 40% of voters are content with the Smith proposals or believe they go TOO far, 30% want them to go further.
This is not a majority "unhappy with the Smith Commission proposals". It is not even a plurality. It is a minority.
But as I say it is very early days, I doubt Scots will be able to give an informed opinion until the powers are handed over and being used, which is years away.
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
Err The Conservatives are not being replaced as the lead party in those areas. Labour are under a real and present danger of being almost wiped out in a stronghold that they have had for 30+ years.
We will see when that happens. Parties adapt. Tories received more tha 50% of the votes in 1955. Today they receive 15%.
The 1955 figure is more than a bit artificial though. Back then most contests in both Scotland and GB as a whole were straight fights between Tory and Labour with few Liberals/SNP candidates contesting. Thus, both Tory and Labour shares were significantly inflated by second preference votes.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
On the Smith Commission 30% say it does not go far enough; 26% say it's about right; 14% say too far; the rest don't know. That does not look like a country feeling it has been betrayed.
We can probably treat that 30% as the SNP new bedrock.
Yes - it's about the same level as the historical pro-independence part of the Scottish population.
I cannot see the SNP taking less than 37% of the vote regardless of what happens. People are talking of a surge. There is NO SURGE. The vote distribution is very similar to Holyrood 2011. The SNP will win because they will be facing three opponents which, they have cleverly dubbed the "Unionist" vote who will divide the anti SNP vote. The LDs have helped by completely collapsing. They will win only 2 seats. Curtice is being kind. Danny Boy will get trounced in Inverness no matter what Easterross thinks about it. Labour could scrape to about 20-25 seats if it manages to do a 30+%.
In 2010, the Scots very astutely voted Labour for Westminster and then SNP in 2011. Now they don't need to vote Labour in Westminster. In fact, they would prefer the Tories to give them more devomax in return for less representation which the SNP will agree with.
When I visit Scotland once a year, it feels like another North European country. The Saltire and the EU flag everywhere. You can hardly see a Union Jack.
Labour has to have three distinct campaigns: winnning marginals in England, saving its bacon in Scotland, on the back foot aboutthe NHS in Wales. These will produce inevitable stresses and inconsistencies whichthe Tories should be able to use to good effect in England.
Labour has so far shown little to no evidence that it can mount one effective campaign under Ed. The idea it can do three looks well beyond its capability.
I remain firmly of the view that the campaign will prove disastrous for Labour. I also remain of the view that the SNP is the only party which has a message that unites the Yes voters and the No-but-more-Devomax-please voters. I can see them getting 50% of the Scottish vote in May.
Agreed. The general consensus seems to be that SLAB’s support level 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. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract the proportion of the female vote, which has been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make further 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, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point.
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, so any alliance would have no credibility.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
I can't see Labour making much headway in the South East (outside London) or East Anglia.
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
Err The Conservatives are not being replaced as the lead party in those areas. Labour are under a real and present danger of being almost wiped out in a stronghold that they have had for 30+ years.
We will see when that happens. Parties adapt. Tories received more tha 50% of the votes in 1955. Today they receive 15%.
If all Labour gain is 10 or so from the Conservatives, only gain 5 from LDs, but lose 30 to the SNP, Labour will be in a perilous state and Miliband would have to resign.
Labour stand to gain over 30 seats in the South and East [ not East Midlands ] alone,
Labour has to have three distinct campaigns: winnning marginals in England, saving its bacon in Scotland, on the back foot aboutthe NHS in Wales. These will produce inevitable stresses and inconsistencies whichthe Tories should be able to use to good effect in England.
Labour has so far shown little to no evidence that it can mount one effective campaign under Ed. The idea it can do three looks well beyond its capability.
I remain firmly of the view that the campaign will prove disastrous for Labour. I also remain of the view that the SNP is the only party which has a message that unites the Yes voters and the No-but-more-Devomax-please voters. I can see them getting 50% of the Scottish vote in May.
Agreed. The general consensus seems to be that SLAB’s support level 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. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract the proportion of the female vote, which has been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make further 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, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point.
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, so any alliance would have no credibility.
Well this tory is willing to swallow anti nausea pills and vote Labour to try and stop the SNP. The tories are unionists beyond all else as they demonstrated so clearly in the referendum campaign. That gave numerous tartan tories a real fright. I think there will be a lot more Unionist tactical voting than you think.
Labour are a bunch of incompetent buffoons who, if they get power, will do serious damage to my country but at least they won't end it.
Clearly there is a good chance that Labour will lose a lot of seats to the SNP. This could have very negative consequences for the UK in the long term. However, in the short term I do not see that it makes an Ed Miliband premiership (however short) any less likely.
This is because the SNP have clearly said they will not support the Conservatives under any circumstances. Therefore if SNP and Labour have between them 326 seats then any Conservative Queens' speech will be voted down.
Labour and the SNP currently have 264 seats. They will probably gain 9 more in Scotland from the LDs, taking them to 273 seats. Labour are likely to win at least another 8 Lib Dem seats in England and Wales, taking them to 281 seats. That means Labour would need to win 45 seats in England from the Conservatives. On a uniform swing they can do this even if the Conservatives have a lead of up to 4 points in England. In practice they would need fewer than this given SF do not sit and SDLP, the green and PC are all likely to oppose a Conservative queen speech - meaning Labour would likely need only 40 gains to make this happen.
So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.
The SNP essentially have 2 options here - vote in favour or abstain. If a deal could be done with the LDs - abstention could well be enough to keep Labour in power.
Obviously there are huge unknowns here and there would likely be a lot of complaints within England.
My main point is that while the SNP surge in Scotland is obviously bad news for Labour it may not have a huge effect on whether a Miliband becomes Prime Minister. This is because the SNP does not really have much leverage here - and in a second election Labour could win back a lot of seats from the SNP if they are seen to have brought a possible Labour government down.
If the SNP overtake SLAB in Westminster that looks like a massive long term disaster for Labour. But can Labour effectively fight for all the marginals in England & Wales and hold off the SNP surge in Scotland?
Time is running out for any switch of resources to have any material effect.
You should have a look at what is going on in the South East, Eastern and East Midlands. The Tories are losing even more seats and not all to UKIP. In fact, very few but thanks to them !
I can't see Labour making much headway in the South East (outside London) or East Anglia.
Just, for example, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Ipswich, Norwich South, Plymouth Sutton, Stroud, Waveney.
Another way of looking at this is to focus on England and Wales only.
Lets assume Labour gain 8 seats in England and 1 seat in Wales from the Lib Dems and the Conservatives gain 12 seats in England from the Lib Dems.
Then in terms of England only Labour need to gain 55 Conservative seats in England (1.8% Con vote lead on UNS) to have the most seats in England and 68 Conservative seats (0.4% Lab vote lead on UNS) to have a majority of seats in England.
In terms of England and Wales Labour need to gain 45 Conservative seats in England (3.9% Con vote lead on UNS) to have the most seats in E&W and 59 Conservative seats in England (0.9% Con vote lead on UNS).
If Labour have a majority of seats in E&W it is hard to see how they do not form a government - given at worst the SNP will abstain on confidence votes lest they risk a Tory government.
Of course, the conservatives may outperform UNS or may rebuild a sizeable English lead before the GE.
The point is that as things stand at the moment Labour could form a government even with big losses to the SNP - it is harder and messier but still possible.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
Oh right, you're basing it on a sample of one, taken 40 years ago.. all the best
There's always been massive anti-Tory tactical voting in Scotland too, apparently helping the SNP in some of those North East seats which we now know are deadset against independence.
Are you sure?
I'd always had the impression that a lot of the SNP NE seats were driven by "tartan Tories" voting for the SNP as the most credible opposition to Labour.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
The Scottish vote suggests otherwise. Out nearly broke up a far more successful Union than the EU.
The good lord and his Scottish constituency polling?
The bookies move the prices then too, they are allowed to look at polls
I think that's totally unfair/
I've often wondered why, given @isam comment on "rats" why bookies don't suspend betting e.g. 5 minutes before a known event such as the Ashcroft polls? Wouldn't that kill such market timing behaviour stone dead?
My impression, though, is that the only serious tactical vote action in Britain is the Lib<->Lab vote, which gsthers behind the stronger candidate with impressive discipline. It's not obvious that anyone else has got seriously into it.
There's always been massive anti-Tory tactical voting in Scotland too, apparently helping the SNP in some of those North East seats which we now know are deadset against independence.
40% Yes is not really "deadset against" in my book.
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
The SNP advance both in 2011 and now the likely one in 2015 is even more impressive if the actual swings are taken into account. Of the 59 seats, only 7 require swings of less than 10%.
I can now see why the bookie odds still back the incumbent [ mostly Labour ] against the SNP.
Ladbrokes [ their punters actually ] has made the SNP favourite in every seat needing a swing of less than 12% !!!!!!!!!
The only exceptions are:Dundee West 9,8%,Edinburgh East 11.5%, Livingston 11.3%, . These swings would be considered near to impossible in England unless UKIP was involved.
Every Glasgow seat needs a swing in excess of 15.8%.
Nationally, the SNP are currently achieving more than 20% swings !!!
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
The Scottish vote suggests otherwise. Out nearly broke up a far more successful Union than the EU.
They want to stay in the EU. In fact, if UK leaves the EU, Scotland will go independent.
Clearly there is a good chance that Labour will lose a lot of seats to the SNP. This could have very negative consequences for the UK in the long term. However, in the short term I do not see that it makes an Ed Miliband premiership (however short) any less likely.
This is because the SNP have clearly said they will not support the Conservatives under any circumstances. Therefore if SNP and Labour have between them 326 seats then any Conservative Queens' speech will be voted down.
The good lord and his Scottish constituency polling?
The bookies move the prices then too, they are allowed to look at polls
I think that's totally unfair/
I've often wondered why, given @isam comment on "rats" why bookies don't suspend betting e.g. 5 minutes before a known event such as the Ashcroft polls? Wouldn't that kill such market timing behaviour stone dead?
Without wanting to offend, I am obviously a keen political bettor myself, it's because most bookies don't employ a proper politics trader I think, and they just aren't looking...
Betting on politics is a bit of an irrelevance for most firms I reckon, so they just lay tiny size bets and let the market make the book
Clearly there is a good chance that Labour will lose a lot of seats to the SNP. This could have very negative consequences for the UK in the long term. However, in the short term I do not see that it makes an Ed Miliband premiership (however short) any less likely.
This is because the SNP have clearly said they will not support the Conservatives under any circumstances. Therefore if SNP and Labour have between them 326 seats then any Conservative Queens' speech will be voted down.
Labour and the SNP currently have 264 seats. They will probably gain 9 more in Scotland from the LDs, taking them to 273 seats. Labour are likely to win at least another 8 Lib Dem seats in England and Wales, taking them to 281 seats. That means Labour would need to win 45 seats in England from the Conservatives. On a uniform swing they can do this even if the Conservatives have a lead of up to 4 points in England. In practice they would need fewer than this given SF do not sit and SDLP, the green and PC are all likely to oppose a Conservative queen speech - meaning Labour would likely need only 40 gains to make this happen.
So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.
The SNP essentially have 2 options here - vote in favour or abstain. If a deal could be done with the LDs - abstention could well be enough to keep Labour in power.
Obviously there are huge unknowns here and there would likely be a lot of complaints within England.
My main point is that while the SNP surge in Scotland is obviously bad news for Labour it may not have a huge effect on whether a Miliband becomes Prime Minister. This is because the SNP does not really have much leverage here - and in a second election Labour could win back a lot of seats from the SNP if they are seen to have brought a possible Labour government down.
A serious point - abstaining from voting for a Tory led administration is not excluded by that wording, is it? So you need to have a second branch of logical consequences to allow for a Tory minority (or coalition) unsupported, but not voted against, by the SNP.
For instance, if Mr Miliband refused sufficient give and take with the SNP, they could refuse to vote him in - but could also refuse to vote the Tories in.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
The Scottish vote suggests otherwise. Out nearly broke up a far more successful Union than the EU.
They want to stay in the EU. In fact, if UK leaves the EU, Scotland will go independent.
What I mean is that large numbers of voters are willing to ignore threats of horrors and vote against the status quo.
The good lord and his Scottish constituency polling?
The bookies move the prices then too, they are allowed to look at polls
I think that's totally unfair/
I've often wondered why, given @isam comment on "rats" why bookies don't suspend betting e.g. 5 minutes before a known event such as the Ashcroft polls? Wouldn't that kill such market timing behaviour stone dead?
Without wanting to offend, I am obviously a keen political bettor myself, it's because most bookies don't employ a proper politics trader I think, and they just aren't looking...
Betting on politics is a bit of an irrelevance for most firms I reckon, so they just lay tiny size bets and let the market make the book
I'd agree - but equally it wouldn't take much effort to introduce a system to suspend bets. They'd need to have someone ready to go to review the materials and get the markets back online quickly though or they would lose volume to their competitors
Any UK Government is likely to refuse to agree to a further referendum before circa 2040 on the basis that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Salmond did say that it was 'a once in a generation opportunity'. Is he not a man of his word?
Nothing to do with him. If the Scots want one they will have one.
Are you contemplating the possibility of UDI then? Surely that could be a recipe for the beginning of civil war. After all, Cameron - and Westminster - had to agree to the 2014 referendum!
Not particularly, no, I don't expect UDI unless someone plays really silly beggars. Because if there was real public pressure for a referendum and there was then a Yes, it would be very difficult for London to refuse first the referendum and the consequences. Think of the impact on international credibility.
Mr Cameron accepted a referendum when the Scots voted to have one (by bringing in the SNP who had that in their manifesto) and that was with the pro-indy polling at about 25-30% IIRC.
And I don't think anyone is seriously expecting a referendum until such time as public demand has built up. But first we have to see what people think of such few of the Smith proposals as are to be vouchsafed to us.
The good lord and his Scottish constituency polling?
The bookies move the prices then too, they are allowed to look at polls
I think that's totally unfair/
I've often wondered why, given @isam comment on "rats" why bookies don't suspend betting e.g. 5 minutes before a known event such as the Ashcroft polls? Wouldn't that kill such market timing behaviour stone dead?
Without wanting to offend, I am obviously a keen political bettor myself, it's because most bookies don't employ a proper politics trader I think, and they just aren't looking...
Betting on politics is a bit of an irrelevance for most firms I reckon, so they just lay tiny size bets and let the market make the book
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I'm not sure you have read my post fully. In the above scenario Labour and the SNP have 321 seats. Add in the green, SDLP and PC and the Queen's Speech would be defeated, at which point Miliband would be called.
The SNP advance both in 2011 and now the likely one in 2015 is even more impressive if the actual swings are taken into account. Of the 59 seats, only 7 require swings of less than 10%.
I can now see why the bookie odds still back the incumbent [ mostly Labour ] against the SNP.
Ladbrokes [ their punters actually ] has made the SNP favourite in every seat needing a swing of less than 12% !!!!!!!!!
The only exceptions are:Dundee West 9,8%,Edinburgh East 11.5%, Livingston 11.3%, . These swings would be considered near to impossible in England unless UKIP was involved.
Every Glasgow seat needs a swing in excess of 15.8%.
Nationally, the SNP are currently achieving more than 20% swings !!!
Labour are going to lose Scotland. The heartland. Extraordinary.
Even if Miliband then scrapes into Number 10, if he gets a plurality but NOM, and relies on SNP support, the SNP will deliberately sabotage any informal Coalition to cause more grievance, make impossible demands to hack off the English, etc.
Moreover, Miliband will be massively unpopular anyway, in short order (cf Hollande), and this Anglobaiting by his "Coalition partners" will just make it much worse. Then the SNP will find a reason to pull the plug and his government will fall. Why should the Nats shackle themselves to a disliked English government?
Scotland really is a nightmare for Labour. Almost whatever happens, Labour are f*cked. Their own Devolution has returned as a monster to devour them.
CHORTLE.
"Scotland really is a nightmare for Labour any UK government. Almost whatever happens, the government is f*cked. "
The Devomax proposal has only increased the problem. The Tories only did it to lower Scottish representation. Basically, a selfish reason.
Ironically, this SNP gain, is only because of FPTP. In England, FPTP massively helps Labour. In Scotland, likewise the SNP.
I notice that WillHill have a "Labour seats in Scotland" market.
Labour Apocalypse (0-5) is 40/1. I have placed £1 on such an outcome. For I am a big spender.
I think the William Hill SLAB markets are still good value even now. Interestingly, they slashed their 0 - 15 seats prices the day before the Survation poll was published. For example, they cut 0 - 5 seats from 125/1 to 40/1 and 11 - 15 from 66/1 to 18/1. I have built a nice position in the 0 - 5, 6 - 10 and 11 - 15 markets with a hedging bet in the 16 - 20 seats.
Not particularly, no, I don't expect UDI unless someone plays really silly beggars. Because if there was real public pressure for a referendum and there was then a Yes, it would be very difficult for London to refuse first the referendum and the consequences. Think of the impact on international credibility.
In practice, how much damage has Madrid suffered from Catalonia. Yes, a few political nerds laugh at the them & I think there have been a couple of comments in respect of Gib, but beyond that nada.
Mr Cameron accepted a referendum when the Scots voted to have one (by bringing in the SNP who had that in their manifesto) and that was with the pro-indy polling at about 25-30% IIRC.
And I don't think anyone is seriously expecting a referendum until such time as public demand has built up. But first we have to see what people think of such few of the Smith proposals as are to be vouchsafed to us.
Which he can easily resist now on the grounds that the people of Scotland have made their views clear.
SeanT Several EU polls have had either a narrow 'out' lead or a narrow 'in' lead of about 2%. The biggest 'In' lead by far is in Scotland, where about 60%+ want to stay in, followed by London. It is equally possible that England will vote narrowly to quit the EU, but the margin of victory of the 'In' side in Scotland will be large enough to keep the UK in the EU
After a campaign IN will win by 67 - 33.
What makes you think that? Almost all polls show OUT winning.. that's why theyre never talked about much on here
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
The Scottish vote suggests otherwise. Out nearly broke up a far more successful Union than the EU.
They want to stay in the EU. In fact, if UK leaves the EU, Scotland will go independent.
So England will be free of the financial demands and the socialist tendencies of both of them at the same time? It's a very exciting prospect. Almost certainly too good to be true.
Carnyx - I think it would be very difficult for the SNP to abstain on a Conservative Queen's Speech, especially if they have just won a whole series of traditionally Labour seats in Glasgow and the rest of the central belt.
Labour would then argue that there actions were propping up an unpopular Tory government and this would likely result in a big drop in their popularity - potentially putting at risk their majority in 2016.
SeanT - I remember before 2010 you claimed that Labour were f*cked because they would finish 3rd and be replaced by the Lib Dems as the main party of the left.
You are obviously right that losing most of their Scottish seats would be damaging to Labour and the scenario you set out is clearly a possible outcome.
However, if Labour did sufficiently well in E&W to be the largest party in a hung parliament it is possible that they will only rely on SNP abstention, not support. In this scenario (for the reasons above) the SNP leverage is limited.
Another scenario could see the loss of Scottish seats leading to an unstable minority Conservative government, unable to do much and hostage to a few right wing rebels, allowing Labour to replace an unpopular leader and make a renewed case to Scottish voters that only a by voting Labour can they get rid of a Tory government. In this scenario it is possible to imagine Labour winning a subsequent election.
Of course - as you suggest a weak Labour minority government is possible with a resurgent Conservative party coming back to win a second election.
I think 2010 was the start of a messy, fragmented era of politics where no one party is going to be dominant. That clearly isn't great for Labour but its not disastrous either.
Scottish UDI is out of the question. You only need to see how the international community reacted to possible legal independence to work out how it would react to a non-agreed separation. You then need to throw in the fact that the rest of the UK is by far Scotland's most important trading partner and all the currency stuff etc etc. Scotland would be isolated and desperately badly hit fiscally and economically.
Look at Catalonia - they were going to have a referendum, the Catalan people clearly demonstrated they wanted one, the Spanish government refused to recognise it, the Catalan government appealed to the international community and was almost totally ignored. There was a consultation instead. The independence side won it big on a 50% turnout. Nothing happened, except the latest opinion polls now have the No side fractionally ahead.
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I'm not sure you have read my post fully. In the above scenario Labour and the SNP have 321 seats. Add in the green, SDLP and PC and the Queen's Speech would be defeated, at which point Miliband would be called.
And you haven't read my post fully. The SNP would not go into formal Coalition with Labour. They would offer Confidence and Supply, for as long as it suited them.
My guess is that would be about 12 months, at which point they would scream "Westminster Betrayal" (maybe, helpfully, just before the Holyrood Elections?), and a hugely unpopular Miliband government would fall.
At the time I responded to Justin I hadn't seen your post SeanT, so no I hadn't read it fully!
In any event my initial post said nothing about how long a Miliband government would last. What I said was that SNP success would not make a Miliband government any less likely (however short).
It could be a very short government indeed and who knows what would happen after that?
It is hard enough to predict what will happen on May 7th never mind at some subsequent election!
To reiterate - the scenario you have outlined could well happen. But to my mind it is only one of many possibilities, given the huge uncertainties involved.
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I'm not sure you have read my post fully. In the above scenario Labour and the SNP have 321 seats. Add in the green, SDLP and PC and the Queen's Speech would be defeated, at which point Miliband would be called.
And you haven't read my post fully. The SNP would not go into formal Coalition with Labour. They would offer Confidence and Supply, for as long as it suited them.
My guess is that would be about 12 months, at which point they would scream "Westminster Betrayal" (maybe, helpfully, just before the Holyrood Elections?), and a hugely unpopular Miliband government would fall.
Voting to bring down an unpopular minority Labour government in 1979 destroyed the SNP for a generation. To avoid a repeat they will not do anything that could ever be interpreted as being helpful to the Tories. That's the quickest way for the SNP to lose support to Labour in Scotland.
I notice that WillHill have a "Labour seats in Scotland" market.
Labour Apocalypse (0-5) is 40/1. I have placed £1 on such an outcome. For I am a big spender.
I think the William Hill SLAB markets are still good value even now. Interestingly, they slashed their 0 - 15 seats prices the day before the Survation poll was published. For example, they cut 0 - 5 seats from 125/1 to 40/1 and 11 - 15 from 66/1 to 18/1. I have built a nice position in the 0 - 5, 6 - 10 and 11 - 15 markets with a hedging bet in the 16 - 20 seats.
I really should pay more attention to what markets are out there. I'd have had £10 @ 125/1
Have we had a campaign yet ? Only the BOO people are constantly bleating about it. At the start of the 1975 campaign , it was also 2 -1 for leaving. The final result was the opposite. It will be the same for the same reasons.
So polls are only relevant once the campaign has started.. Ok
Just one other point SeanT. It is possible that Labour will win more English seats at the General Election than the Conservatives.
On a uniform swing this would happen with a Conservative vote lead in England of 1.8%. This is very much in line with what current polling is showing.
At this point the Lib Dems would likely determine which party had an English majority.
It is therefore possible that even if the SNP win most of Labour's seats in Scotland that Labour could form a government that had the support of a majority of seats in England and Wales - it would therefore only require SNP abstention.
In this scenario it would be harder for the Conservatives to appeal to English grievances in the way you suggest.
Just one other point SeanT. It is possible that Labour will win more English seats at the General Election than the Conservatives.
On a uniform swing this would happen with a Conservative vote lead in England of 1.8%. This is very much in line with what current polling is showing.
At this point the Lib Dems would likely determine which party had an English majority.
It is therefore possible that even if the SNP win most of Labour's seats in Scotland that Labour could form a government that had the support of a majority of seats in England and Wales - it would therefore only require SNP abstention.
In this scenario it would be harder for the Conservatives to appeal to English grievances in the way you suggest.
The SNP is not ever going to risk voting to bring down a Labour government. It did that once before and it did not work out well. The one quick way back for Labour in Scotland is for the SNP to do something that helps to support or deliver a Tory government in Westminster.
The good lord and his Scottish constituency polling?
The bookies move the prices then too, they are allowed to look at polls
I think that's totally unfair/
I've often wondered why, given @isam comment on "rats" why bookies don't suspend betting e.g. 5 minutes before a known event such as the Ashcroft polls? Wouldn't that kill such market timing behaviour stone dead?
Without wanting to offend, I am obviously a keen political bettor myself, it's because most bookies don't employ a proper politics trader I think, and they just aren't looking...
Betting on politics is a bit of an irrelevance for most firms I reckon, so they just lay tiny size bets and let the market make the book
I'd agree - but equally it wouldn't take much effort to introduce a system to suspend bets. They'd need to have someone ready to go to review the materials and get the markets back online quickly though or they would lose volume to their competitors
They only offer politics as loss leaders because bookies seem to think they have to bet on everything nowadays... if they could get out of doing it at all they probably would.
Their excuse could well be to stop doing it because of rats coming on to pick them off whenever a poll comes out, so beware rats!
I know IG Index could barely be bothered doing political markets for precisely that reason
SO - I agree with you, I just hope the Labour leadership realise this in any hung parliament negotiation with the SNP.
My view is that Labour need to hang tough and refuse to give the SNP anything. To do so would only allow the Conservatives to play the English grievance card and fatally weaken any minority Labour government.
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I'm not sure you have read my post fully. In the above scenario Labour and the SNP have 321 seats. Add in the green, SDLP and PC and the Queen's Speech would be defeated, at which point Miliband would be called.
And you haven't read my post fully. The SNP would not go into formal Coalition with Labour. They would offer Confidence and Supply, for as long as it suited them.
My guess is that would be about 12 months, at which point they would scream "Westminster Betrayal" (maybe, helpfully, just before the Holyrood Elections?), and a hugely unpopular Miliband government would fall.
Voting to bring down an unpopular minority Labour government in 1979 destroyed the SNP for a generation. To avoid a repeat they will not do anything that could ever be interpreted as being helpful to the Tories. That's the quickest way for the SNP to lose support to Labour in Scotland.
Everything has changed, or haven't you noticed? Many - most? - Scots now despise Labour. Especially under Miliband.
Bringing down a very unpopular Miliband government - "in the interests of Scotland" - would do the Nats no harm at all.
And we know how it would happen. Sturgeon would demand something Miliband cannot give, like the removal of Trident from Scotland. Miliband would refuse. His minority government would fall.
The SNP might vote against Trident, but that won't bring down any government. Labour is hated for being seen to side with the Tories. The SNP may just learn something from that. You don't win in Glasgow by doing anything that aids the creation of a Tory government in Westminster. Salmond can get away with talking about wanting Labour to win most seats in next year's GE - which he has - but he could never say anything similar about the Tories, even though a minority Tory government suits the SNP best.
I have an od iopd that I listen to in the car.. today a couple of CD's I bought 2nd hand off amazon for £1.25 each arrived.. I bought the hard copies rather than pay 99p a song off iTunes.. thought I was being shrewd...
Now, having imported them to my iTunes, I am trying to sync my ipod to my library.. absolutely nothing is happening.. any ideas?
SeanT - Why have the Labour Yes voters switched to the SNP? Surely it is because the SNP have successfully convinced them that Labour allied themselves with the nasty Tories and stopped Scotland from becoming a socialist nirvana.
How are those people going to feel if the SNP ends up supporting the Tories, however tacitly. Or taking actions that can be seen as resulting in a Tory government being re-elected.
I also think you underplay the turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas issue.
Say the SNP win 50 seats. Do they really want to risk losing office straight away? Sure, they might win those seats again in a second election. But they might not. Would they risk it?
SO - I agree with you, I just hope the Labour leadership realise this in any hung parliament negotiation with the SNP.
My view is that Labour need to hang tough and refuse to give the SNP anything. To do so would only allow the Conservatives to play the English grievance card and fatally weaken any minority Labour government.
I have a better idea than John Curtice has in his analysis, since almost all of those who voted YES in the scottish referendum want to vote for the SNP, then you simply apply the referendum results on a constituency level. When I crunched the numbers I assumed that every seat which YES took more than 40% will go for the SNP (Charles Kennedy's seat the one exception) and the result is SNP 47-48, LAB 6, CON 2-3 and LD 2 seats, with Aberdeenshire West being of the edge.
Much more realistic than the SNP taking Dumfreshire from the Tories.
Carnyx - I think it would be very difficult for the SNP to abstain on a Conservative Queen's Speech, especially if they have just won a whole series of traditionally Labour seats in Glasgow and the rest of the central belt.
Labour would then argue that there actions were propping up an unpopular Tory government and this would likely result in a big drop in their popularity - potentially putting at risk their majority in 2016.
[snip]
Thanks. Certainly a point to be argued. However, if the SNP are successful enough to have won that big then SLAB is well on the way to becoming an unpopular and resented minority Unionist party - especially if Mr Miliband is in charge in London and does something unfortunate or unpopular. Be a while before Labour are in quite the same position as the Scottish Tories, but it is a possibility to bear in mind.
Anyway, been reading this discussion with interest.
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
IMO there's no guarantee Labour will make net gains at the next election.
Say they lose 30 seats to the SNP.
Well I think there are only about 25 nailed-on Labour gains in the rest of the country: about 10 from the LDs and 15 from the Tories.
So they could be down by 5 seats overall.
A gain of just 15 seats from the Tories is unrealistic for Labour, they get that with a swing of just 1%, the swing in England and Wales is far greater than 1%.
IMO there's no guarantee Labour will make net gains at the next election.
Say they lose 30 seats to the SNP.
Well I think there are only about 25 nailed-on Labour gains in the rest of the country: about 10 from the LDs and 15 from the Tories.
So they could be down by 5 seats overall.
A gain of just 15 seats from the Tories is unrealistic for Labour, they get that with a swing of just 1%, the swing in England and Wales is far greater than 1%.
Look at the individual constituencies on their target list. Stockton South, North Warwickshire, Morecambe & Lunesdale are all near the top, and I wouldn't bet my life savings that any of those are going to change hands. Not with Ed as leader.
Carnyx / SeanT - I'm not arguing that the SNP won't try to bring a Labour government down. I agree with SO though that this would be a very risky thing to do, but it may be that their hubris overwhelm their self-interest.
I also think the whole situation is very unpredictable. So I'm not claiming that I know what will happen for certain.
But my point is that the SNP will need to be careful in how they exercise their power if they do win a substantial amount of power in a hung parliament.
AndyJS - clearly there is no guarantee that Labour make net gains, but it is surely probably that they will even if they lose 30 seats to the SNP. As you say 10 gains are nailed on from the LDs. To make a net gain they would therefore need 25 gains from the Tories. On UNS they would do this even if the Tories had a lead of 7 points in England. Plus there is clearly the possibility of at least some recovery in Scotland. So no certainties, but I think net gains are quite likely, maybe an 80% chance.
Speedy If the SNP do hold the balance of power and prop up a Labour government that failed to win England there is no doubt the UKIP total would increase significantly in the rest of the UK. However, I remain of the view that a Tory-LD coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour deal once the Smith proposals are put into law from January, though again Scotland could produce another Coalition when England voted Tory
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
The correct figures are probably 5% in Scotland and 16-17% overall. Both within the margin of error.
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
please explain
It's simple, in Scotland UKIP are very unpopular compared with the rest of the country, in 2010 UKIP got less than 1% there. Of course UKIP has surged since but most of the surge recorded is still in England and Wales and not in Scotland, as an example UKIP just got slightly more than 10% in the european election this year far less than 27% in the whole country.
Also most pollsters that have UKIP on a higher level than ICM still have UKIP lower in Scotland than ICM. Logic would dictate that for ICM either UKIP is too high in Scotland or to low in the UK.
With UKIP, SNP and the Greens, this election must be the most unpredictable in our lifetimes. There are more variables than ever. The Tories could win with less votes than Labour and less than 30% of the vote if Labour lose seats to the SNP. Or Labour could win if they pick up seats in England in regions where they are neck and neck in the opinion polls. Elections are won and lost in the margins. so even the Greens could have a big effect. Whatever the outcome, I hope it forces the major parties to make a commitment of electoral reform.
Speedy If the SNP do hold the balance of power and prop up a Labour government that failed to win England there is no doubt the UKIP total would increase significantly in the rest of the UK. However, I remain of the view that a Tory-LD coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour deal once the Smith proposals are put into law from January, though again Scotland could produce another Coalition when England voted Tory
The Smith proposals seem to be unpopular both in England and Scotland (to the point were the SNP tends to burn it for publicity), so I doubt the unpopular messy compromise of the Smith proposals will carry the Tories to victory in a general election. Also not many really care about the Smith proposals in the first place.
IMO there's no guarantee Labour will make net gains at the next election.
Say they lose 30 seats to the SNP.
Well I think there are only about 25 nailed-on Labour gains in the rest of the country: about 10 from the LDs and 15 from the Tories.
So they could be down by 5 seats overall.
A gain of just 15 seats from the Tories is unrealistic for Labour, they get that with a swing of just 1%, the swing in England and Wales is far greater than 1%.
Look at the individual constituencies on their target list. Stockton South, North Warwickshire, Morecambe & Lunesdale are all near the top, and I wouldn't bet my life savings that any of those are going to change hands. Not with Ed as leader.
Going by oddschecker , Con is favourite in 276 seats in E&W against 256 for Labour.
'So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I'm not sure you have read my post fully. In the above scenario Labour and the SNP have 321 seats. Add in the green, SDLP and PC and the Queen's Speech would be defeated, at which point Miliband would be called.
And
Voting to bring down an unpopular minority Labour government in 1979 destroyed the SNP for a generation. To avoid a repeat they will not do anything that could ever be interpreted as being helpful to the Tories. That's the quickest way for the SNP to lose support to Labour in Scotland.
Everything has changed, or haven't you noticed? Many - most? - Scots now despise Labour. Especially under Miliband.
Bringing down a very unpopular Miliband government - "in the interests of Scotland" - would do the Nats no harm at all.
And we know how it would happen. Sturgeon would demand something Miliband cannot give, like the removal of Trident from Scotland. Miliband would refuse. His minority government would fall.
The SNP might vote against Trident, but that won't bring down any government. Labour is hated for being seen to side with the Tories. The SNP may just learn something from that. You don't win in Glasgow by doing anything that aids the creation of a Tory government in Westminster. Salmond can get away with talking about wanting Labour to win most seats in next year's GE - which he has - but he could never say anything similar about the Tories, even though a minority Tory government suits the SNP best.
Has your IQ taken a knock over Christmas?
If the Scots were so worried about having "a Tory government in Westminster" they wouldn't be on the verge of kicking Labour out of every seat in Scotland, thus giving Cameron a much better chance of staying in power.
Duh.
The abstract is very different to the reality. An emergency June budget in which the bedroom tax abolished and a top rate of income tax is increased, neither of which the SNP in Westminster will oppose, and all of a sudden Labour looks very different to the Tories.
Speedy But the Smith proposals are not that unpopular in Scotland that is the point, 13% think they go too far and 26% are about right, more combined than the 30% who think they do not go far enough. That may not help the Tories much but it may produce some swing from the SNP back to Labour once the Smith plans are put into law from January
The point about England was that it had a Tory majority in 2010 and got a LD coalition thanks to Scotland and that could happen again
Speedy But the Smith proposals are not that unpopular in Scotland that is the point, 13% think they go too far and 26% are about right, more combined than the 30% who think they do not go far enough. That may not help the Tories much but it may produce some swing from the SNP back to Labour once the Smith plans are put into law from January
The point about England was that it had a Tory majority in 2010 and got a LD coalition thanks to Scotland and that could happen again
Only 26% think it struck the right balance is a definition of a compromise which not many like. And again very few people care.
Wait a moment you used the Smith proposals as a vehicle in writing that the Tories and LD are going to win the GE, not as a positive for Labour: " However, I remain of the view that a Tory-LD coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour deal once the Smith proposals are put into law from January"
Speedy If the SNP do hold the balance of power and prop up a Labour government that failed to win England there is no doubt the UKIP total would increase significantly in the rest of the UK. However, I remain of the view that a Tory-LD coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour deal once the Smith proposals are put into law from January, though again Scotland could produce another Coalition when England voted Tory
It depends on what the Labour government does. Popular policies will be popular hoever they get through the Commons. Will there be outrage if Labour needs SNP votes to abolish the bedroom tax or raise the top rate of tax to 50 pence? I doubt it. What will be needed is an unpopular measure that only gets through with SNP votes. The Tories will not win close to 50% of the vote in England.
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
please explain
It's simple, in Scotland UKIP are very unpopular compared with the rest of the country, in 2010 UKIP got less than 1% there. Of course UKIP has surged since but most of the surge recorded is still in England and Wales and not in Scotland, as an example UKIP just got slightly more than 10% in the european election this year far less than 27% in the whole country.
Also most pollsters that have UKIP on a higher level than ICM still have UKIP lower in Scotland than ICM. Logic would dictate that for ICM either UKIP is too high in Scotland or to low in the UK.
2014 ec elections In Scotland UKIP got 10% In the whole of the UK UKIP got 27%. Your 1% rationale for UKIP in Scotland should be re-considered.
Any sign Nick of your party switching resources from England to save SLAB?
I don't comment on wider party strategy here, for obvious reasons. But at this point the English marginal campaigns are pretty well ready to go regardless: every day to May 7 is preplanned. We will be outspent in the next three months (but I wonder how much good a barrage of direct mail will really do for the Tories) but the short campaign is fully funded and we vastly outnumber the Tories on the ground. I don't think other marginals are very different.
This isn't to say that the national campaign isn't important - if there are debates, performance compared with expectations will matter. But I'm not expecting clouds of Head Office canvassers and loudspeaker vans in the constituency and with luck we shan't need them.
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
please explain
It's simple, in Scotland UKIP are very unpopular compared with the rest of the country, in 2010 UKIP got less than 1% there. Of course UKIP has surged since but most of the surge recorded is still in England and Wales and not in Scotland, as an example UKIP just got slightly more than 10% in the european election this year far less than 27% in the whole country.
Also most pollsters that have UKIP on a higher level than ICM still have UKIP lower in Scotland than ICM. Logic would dictate that for ICM either UKIP is too high in Scotland or to low in the UK.
2014 ec elections In Scotland UKIP got 10% In the whole of the UK UKIP got 27%. Your 1% rationale for UKIP in Scotland should be re-considered.
They got 1% in 2010, which was 1/3 of the national share, in the euros that ratio remained almost the same, so if UKIP are at 15% they should get around 5% in Scotland.
IMO there's no guarantee Labour will make net gains at the next election.
Say they lose 30 seats to the SNP.
Well I think there are only about 25 nailed-on Labour gains in the rest of the country: about 10 from the LDs and 15 from the Tories.
So they could be down by 5 seats overall.
To support your point. For at least 70 years, in the election after Labour lose power, then their vote share drops in that election as well. One of those "rules".
May I also make a point of order about the ICM scottish poll, UKIP on 7% in scotland is unrealistic if UKIP are on 14% in the whole country with ICM, one of the 2 figures must in the end be incorrect.
please explain
It's simple, in Scotland UKIP are very unpopular compared with the rest of the country, in 2010 UKIP got less than 1% there. Of course UKIP has surged since but most of the surge recorded is still in England and Wales and not in Scotland, as an example UKIP just got slightly more than 10% in the european election this year far less than 27% in the whole country.
Also most pollsters that have UKIP on a higher level than ICM still have UKIP lower in Scotland than ICM. Logic would dictate that for ICM either UKIP is too high in Scotland or to low in the UK.
2014 ec elections In Scotland UKIP got 10% In the whole of the UK UKIP got 27%. Your 1% rationale for UKIP in Scotland should be re-considered.
1% is the Ukip 2010 fig I'm Scotland isn't it?
Speedys point is that if Ukip are on 7% there now then they should be on 22-23% uk wide prob more as Scotland isn't strong Ukip territory
So either 7% is wrong in this poll (probably) or ICMs Ukip score is too low in uk polls
Comments
http://www.liberal-vision.org/2014/12/27/why-i-am-leaving-the-liberal-democrats/
And that was a good point you made re the EU and Scotland keeping the Kippers of (mostly) England in the EU - bit of a dilemma for them there.
Labour has so far shown little to no evidence that it can mount one effective campaign under Ed. The idea it can do three looks well beyond its capability.
I remain firmly of the view that the campaign will prove disastrous for Labour. I also remain of the view that the SNP is the only party which has a message that unites the Yes voters and the No-but-more-Devomax-please voters. I can see them getting 50% of the Scottish vote in May.
Hmm ... point taken. Looking at it again,
60% of the No voters reckoned that the proposals were OK or too far - 33% of all voters, crudely (very crudely, as the 31% DK figure is 2x the Indyref abstention figure). .
12% of the Yes voters think OK or too far - 5%. That's about 38% of all voters. Deduct the 31% don't know, leaving 31% who think not far enough.
Quite a big DK margin though and we need to see how reality bites as opposed to the media promises of devomax.
Surbiton Reasonable odds I would imagine. On the EU your results are a common market style result, on the present EU it would be much closer to 50-50
Carnyx We will see how it plays out, but when legislation is introduced in January the Smith Plans may see some SNP support recede
In 2010, the Scots very astutely voted Labour for Westminster and then SNP in 2011. Now they don't need to vote Labour in Westminster. In fact, they would prefer the Tories to give them more devomax in return for less representation which the SNP will agree with.
When I visit Scotland once a year, it feels like another North European country. The Saltire and the EU flag everywhere. You can hardly see a Union Jack.
Agreed. The general consensus seems to be that SLAB’s support level 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.
– Nicola Sturgeon will attract the proportion of the female vote, which has been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond.
– UKIP and the Greens will make further 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, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point.
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, so any alliance would have no credibility.
Labour are a bunch of incompetent buffoons who, if they get power, will do serious damage to my country but at least they won't end it.
This is because the SNP have clearly said they will not support the Conservatives under any circumstances. Therefore if SNP and Labour have between them 326 seats then any Conservative Queens' speech will be voted down.
Labour and the SNP currently have 264 seats. They will probably gain 9 more in Scotland from the LDs, taking them to 273 seats. Labour are likely to win at least another 8 Lib Dem seats in England and Wales, taking them to 281 seats. That means Labour would need to win 45 seats in England from the Conservatives. On a uniform swing they can do this even if the Conservatives have a lead of up to 4 points in England. In practice they would need fewer than this given SF do not sit and SDLP, the green and PC are all likely to oppose a Conservative queen speech - meaning Labour would likely need only 40 gains to make this happen.
So in other words a scenario like this (assuming 12 Con gains from the LDs, Lab keep only 10 seats in Scotland): Lab 275, Con 273, SNP 46, LDs 28 Oth 28.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.
The SNP essentially have 2 options here - vote in favour or abstain. If a deal could be done with the LDs - abstention could well be enough to keep Labour in power.
Obviously there are huge unknowns here and there would likely be a lot of complaints within England.
My main point is that while the SNP surge in Scotland is obviously bad news for Labour it may not have a huge effect on whether a Miliband becomes Prime Minister. This is because the SNP does not really have much leverage here - and in a second election Labour could win back a lot of seats from the SNP if they are seen to have brought a possible Labour government down.
Lets assume Labour gain 8 seats in England and 1 seat in Wales from the Lib Dems and the Conservatives gain 12 seats in England from the Lib Dems.
Then in terms of England only Labour need to gain 55 Conservative seats in England (1.8% Con vote lead on UNS) to have the most seats in England and 68 Conservative seats (0.4% Lab vote lead on UNS) to have a majority of seats in England.
In terms of England and Wales Labour need to gain 45 Conservative seats in England (3.9% Con vote lead on UNS) to have the most seats in E&W and 59 Conservative seats in England (0.9% Con vote lead on UNS).
If Labour have a majority of seats in E&W it is hard to see how they do not form a government - given at worst the SNP will abstain on confidence votes lest they risk a Tory government.
Of course, the conservatives may outperform UNS or may rebuild a sizeable English lead before the GE.
The point is that as things stand at the moment Labour could form a government even with big losses to the SNP - it is harder and messier but still possible.
The Fascist mentality of the Greens.
"an estimated seats outcome of SNP 45, Labour 26, Liberal Democrats (on 6% of the vote), 3 and the Conservatives (on 13%), 1"
Which is why I drew attention to it - because it is wrong.
Only now seen your reply. Thanks.
I'd always had the impression that a lot of the SNP NE seats were driven by "tartan Tories" voting for the SNP as the most credible opposition to Labour.
Labour Apocalypse (0-5) is 40/1. I have placed £1 on such an outcome. For I am a big spender.
At that point the Queen has to call for Miliband and under the terms of the fixed parliament act he must get a vote of confidence within 14 days.'
The Queen would not call for anyone until the existing PM resigns. As the incumbent Cameron could opt to meet Parliament and try to persuade it to pass his Queen's Speech - even if he is not leader of the largest party - indeed Brown could have done this in 2010.
I can now see why the bookie odds still back the incumbent [ mostly Labour ] against the SNP.
Ladbrokes [ their punters actually ] has made the SNP favourite in every seat needing a swing of less than 12% !!!!!!!!!
The only exceptions are:Dundee West 9,8%,Edinburgh East 11.5%, Livingston 11.3%, . These swings would be considered near to impossible in England unless UKIP was involved.
Every Glasgow seat needs a swing in excess of 15.8%.
Nationally, the SNP are currently achieving more than 20% swings !!!
Betting on politics is a bit of an irrelevance for most firms I reckon, so they just lay tiny size bets and let the market make the book
For instance, if Mr Miliband refused sufficient give and take with the SNP, they could refuse to vote him in - but could also refuse to vote the Tories in.
Mr Cameron accepted a referendum when the Scots voted to have one (by bringing in the SNP who had that in their manifesto) and that was with the pro-indy polling at about 25-30% IIRC.
And I don't think anyone is seriously expecting a referendum until such time as public demand has built up. But first we have to see what people think of such few of the Smith proposals as are to be vouchsafed to us.
The Devomax proposal has only increased the problem. The Tories only did it to lower Scottish representation. Basically, a selfish reason.
Ironically, this SNP gain, is only because of FPTP. In England, FPTP massively helps Labour. In Scotland, likewise the SNP.
And the Tories desperately wanted it.
It's a very exciting prospect. Almost certainly too good to be true.
Labour would then argue that there actions were propping up an unpopular Tory government and this would likely result in a big drop in their popularity - potentially putting at risk their majority in 2016.
SeanT - I remember before 2010 you claimed that Labour were f*cked because they would finish 3rd and be replaced by the Lib Dems as the main party of the left.
You are obviously right that losing most of their Scottish seats would be damaging to Labour and the scenario you set out is clearly a possible outcome.
However, if Labour did sufficiently well in E&W to be the largest party in a hung parliament it is possible that they will only rely on SNP abstention, not support. In this scenario (for the reasons above) the SNP leverage is limited.
Another scenario could see the loss of Scottish seats leading to an unstable minority Conservative government, unable to do much and hostage to a few right wing rebels, allowing Labour to replace an unpopular leader and make a renewed case to Scottish voters that only a by voting Labour can they get rid of a Tory government. In this scenario it is possible to imagine Labour winning a subsequent election.
Of course - as you suggest a weak Labour minority government is possible with a resurgent Conservative party coming back to win a second election.
I think 2010 was the start of a messy, fragmented era of politics where no one party is going to be dominant. That clearly isn't great for Labour but its not disastrous either.
Look at Catalonia - they were going to have a referendum, the Catalan people clearly demonstrated they wanted one, the Spanish government refused to recognise it, the Catalan government appealed to the international community and was almost totally ignored. There was a consultation instead. The independence side won it big on a 50% turnout. Nothing happened, except the latest opinion polls now have the No side fractionally ahead.
In any event my initial post said nothing about how long a Miliband government would last. What I said was that SNP success would not make a Miliband government any less likely (however short).
It could be a very short government indeed and who knows what would happen after that?
It is hard enough to predict what will happen on May 7th never mind at some subsequent election!
To reiterate - the scenario you have outlined could well happen. But to my mind it is only one of many possibilities, given the huge uncertainties involved.
Or does this only count for an eu referendum campaign? Because it happened before. Once.
On a uniform swing this would happen with a Conservative vote lead in England of 1.8%. This is very much in line with what current polling is showing.
At this point the Lib Dems would likely determine which party had an English majority.
It is therefore possible that even if the SNP win most of Labour's seats in Scotland that Labour could form a government that had the support of a majority of seats in England and Wales - it would therefore only require SNP abstention.
In this scenario it would be harder for the Conservatives to appeal to English grievances in the way you suggest.
Their excuse could well be to stop doing it because of rats coming on to pick them off whenever a poll comes out, so beware rats!
I know IG Index could barely be bothered doing political markets for precisely that reason
My view is that Labour need to hang tough and refuse to give the SNP anything. To do so would only allow the Conservatives to play the English grievance card and fatally weaken any minority Labour government.
It's a rather nice evening for walking the hound. Not too icy, stars are out, no chilling wind.
I have an od iopd that I listen to in the car.. today a couple of CD's I bought 2nd hand off amazon for £1.25 each arrived.. I bought the hard copies rather than pay 99p a song off iTunes.. thought I was being shrewd...
Now, having imported them to my iTunes, I am trying to sync my ipod to my library.. absolutely nothing is happening.. any ideas?
How are those people going to feel if the SNP ends up supporting the Tories, however tacitly. Or taking actions that can be seen as resulting in a Tory government being re-elected.
I also think you underplay the turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas issue.
Say the SNP win 50 seats. Do they really want to risk losing office straight away? Sure, they might win those seats again in a second election. But they might not. Would they risk it?
When I crunched the numbers I assumed that every seat which YES took more than 40% will go for the SNP (Charles Kennedy's seat the one exception) and the result is SNP 47-48, LAB 6, CON 2-3 and LD 2 seats, with Aberdeenshire West being of the edge.
Much more realistic than the SNP taking Dumfreshire from the Tories.
Anyway, been reading this discussion with interest.
Say they lose 30 seats to the SNP.
Well I think there are only about 25 nailed-on Labour gains in the rest of the country: about 10 from the LDs and 15 from the Tories.
So they could be down by 5 seats overall.
I also think the whole situation is very unpredictable. So I'm not claiming that I know what will happen for certain.
But my point is that the SNP will need to be careful in how they exercise their power if they do win a substantial amount of power in a hung parliament.
AndyJS - clearly there is no guarantee that Labour make net gains, but it is surely probably that they will even if they lose 30 seats to the SNP. As you say 10 gains are nailed on from the LDs. To make a net gain they would therefore need 25 gains from the Tories. On UNS they would do this even if the Tories had a lead of 7 points in England. Plus there is clearly the possibility of at least some recovery in Scotland. So no certainties, but I think net gains are quite likely, maybe an 80% chance.
Also most pollsters that have UKIP on a higher level than ICM still have UKIP lower in Scotland than ICM.
Logic would dictate that for ICM either UKIP is too high in Scotland or to low in the UK.
Also not many really care about the Smith proposals in the first place.
In 2010, it was Con 305, Labour 217
The point about England was that it had a Tory majority in 2010 and got a LD coalition thanks to Scotland and that could happen again
And again very few people care.
Wait a moment you used the Smith proposals as a vehicle in writing that the Tories and LD are going to win the GE, not as a positive for Labour:
" However, I remain of the view that a Tory-LD coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour deal once the Smith proposals are put into law from January"
U turn?
In Scotland UKIP got 10%
In the whole of the UK UKIP got 27%.
Your 1% rationale for UKIP in Scotland should be re-considered.
This isn't to say that the national campaign isn't important - if there are debates, performance compared with expectations will matter. But I'm not expecting clouds of Head Office canvassers and loudspeaker vans in the constituency and with luck we shan't need them.
Speedys point is that if Ukip are on 7% there now then they should be on 22-23% uk wide prob more as Scotland isn't strong Ukip territory
So either 7% is wrong in this poll (probably) or ICMs Ukip score is too low in uk polls