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".
But 2010 was the first time they lost power to a Coalition within that 70 years.
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.
Yes. We are talking of Scotland only where Labour could lose 30 seats though I think it will be around 20. Still big.
What is not talked about are the Tory chances in England and Wales. Tories had a lead of 10.24% over Labour in 2010. Currently, it is Labour which has a small lead, 0.5%. The PB Tories are in denial about this. Remember E&W has 572 seats. Scotland 59.
But within that, there is London ! Labour will not do as well as recent elections have suggested. This is because of the Greens. In London they are up from 1.6% to 8.8%.
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
The ratio seems to be in the range of 2.5 to 3 times from Scotland to UK.
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".
With a sample of 3, which after you take out the SDP split becomes 2, which after taking the Liberal surge in 1974 which hit both the big two you end up with a sample of 1 election (1955) which was a change of PM from Churchill to Eden.
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.
Yes. We are talking of Scotland only where Labour could lose 30 seats though I think it will be around 20. Still big.
What is not talked about are the Tory chances in England and Wales. Tories had a lead of 10.24% over Labour in 2010. Currently, it is Labour which has a small lead, 0.5%. The PB Tories are in denial about this. Remember E&W has 572 seats. Scotland 59.
But within that, there is London ! Labour will not do as well as recent elections have suggested. This is because of the Greens. In London they are up from 1.6% to 8.8%.
Most opinion polls point to a swing of around 5.5% in E&W, applying a uniform swing that's around 65-70 Labour gains from the Tories.
The good news is that with so many constituency polls (127 constituencies polled) that you can have a detail look, in fact over the next few days I will write some interesting results when you analyze them all on a certain basis.
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
Is that not forcing a two-dimensional view on the electorate? The real problem, as I see it, is that the Smith proposals are an incoherent pile of crap.
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
Is that not forcing a two-dimensional view on the electorate? The real problem, as I see it, is that the Smith proposals are an incoherent pile of crap.
Hmm. The trouble is also that Labour were by far the most reluctant to get involved in the Smith Commission. So if we have a small midden foisted on us Scots it is courtesy of the Coalition with the active assistance of Labour who did nothing to ameliorate it.
More generally, Labour will increasingly get blamed for everything the Tories do, as they must now be (having teamed up with them for indyref and above all the statement over the pound and then the Vow). So I'm not sure that what is bad for the Tories in Scotland is good for SLAB.
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
Is that not forcing a two-dimensional view on the electorate? The real problem, as I see it, is that the Smith proposals are an incoherent pile of crap.
Hmm. The trouble is also that Labour were by far the most reluctant to get involved in the Smith Commission. So if we have a small midden foisted on us Scots it is courtesy of the Coalition with the active assistance of Labour who did nothing to ameliorate it.
More generally, Labour will increasingly get blamed for everything the Tories do, as they must now be (having teamed up with them for indyref and above all the statement over the pound and then the Vow). So I'm not sure that what is bad for the Tories in Scotland is good for SLAB.
My view is that the consensus itself is a stitch-up, as a result we will not get to vote on the proposition. I am quite happy to let the Scots have more devolution, Devomax if you like - including full control over income tax, for example - as long as it is coherent and fits in with the rest of the UK. if the Scots are going to have powers over taxation, for example, we obviously need to revisit Barnett.
JohnLilburne It is saying the majority of Scots do not want additional powers beyond those proposed by the Smith Commission
But no-one has asked them if they would like a different set of powers. I would certainly not be able to answer the question in one of the three answers given (but then I'm an Englishman who is obviously supposed to neither know nor care about the proposals).
Carnyx/John Lilburne 26% thought the proposals went far enough, 13% too far, only 30% wanted them to go further (which would clearly include those wanting other powers)
One aspect of the ICM poll which is receiving insufficient attention is the leadership ratings.
Sturgeon and Salmond are miles in front of the other leaders. In addition Murphy's Westminster reputation has not translated into visibility in Scotland with only 50 per cent recognition (Salmond is over 80).
One point worth noting Salmond is more popular among female voters +25 than male voters +20 but more popular among male voters than anyone else. This is even more pronounced for Sturgeon. These sort of ratings would be unrecognisable for any English leader with the possible exception of Boris Johnston. They will be of some importance in the election campaign.
The previous reluctance of female voters to back independence in the same percentage as male voters was often confused for refusal to back Salmond. This ICM poll rather puts that to rest.
Carnyx/John Lilburne 26% thought the proposals went far enough, 13% too far, only 30% wanted them to go further (which would clearly include those wanting other powers)
What this discussion has shown is that there does seem to be real confusion in the question setting. There are some powers which are useless without other powers - for instance certain taxation ones. So one can legitimately say 'no thanks' and yet be pro indy. So none of us can draw too many lessons I suppose! Anyway goodnight - I have to join the family Scrabble.
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%.
Nationally, the SNP are currently achieving more than 20% swings !!!
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.
.
Are you seriously calling the Tories "selfish", when it was Labour who brought in Devolution on the terms most favourable to Labour, presuming they could keep Scotland as a private fief, and not bother about equal representation for the English?
Grrr.
And Cameron could, from the off, have given Salmond a Devomax question on the ballot, balanced by EV4EL, screwing Labour before anyone voted. That he didn't shows the opposite of selfishness. Stupid complacency, but not selfishness.
The Vow was made cause the Unionists were rightly frightened by the polls. YES was winning. The SNP thought they were winning. Private polls showed YES was winning. The unionists had no choice, devomax wasn't offered on a partisan whim.
The fact devomax and the Nat surge will devastate Labour is just a happy byproduct of this slightly bizarre chain of events. A chain of events set in motion when Labour acted selfishly, as ever, with Devolution.
Persisting does not make you right. Devomax on the ballot splits the question 13 different ways to christmas. Voting on it just puts off a further indy referendum. Cameron was being what most of his contemporaries are not - a statesman - in framing the question and indeed pushing Salmond into asking it. In or out. Simple. The vote went 'in'. The oil price went down. Devomax simply gives Scotland the opportunity to vary how they tax themselves plus a bit more government responsibility. However as you correctly say where we are now is the inevitable consequence of devolution.
It hardly matters how many SNP MPs vote against trident... the Labour and tory parties are in favour. But it does seem to me that activists have moved to the SNP because of trident and other lefty issues and now, shorn of any 'national' or sane self government aspirations or opportunities, the SNP can fantasise to their heart's content and keep the lefties salivating. Life is easy when the only responsibility you have is to manage a glorified local authority with money allocated to you and an easy get out by saying 'its all their fault'. Devomax will make life more difficult for the SNP.
Comments
No uturn, my point was Smith plans could reduce SNP vote and see the LDs hold balance of power instead
What is not talked about are the Tory chances in England and Wales. Tories had a lead of 10.24% over Labour in 2010. Currently, it is Labour which has a small lead, 0.5%. The PB Tories are in denial about this. Remember E&W has 572 seats. Scotland 59.
But within that, there is London ! Labour will not do as well as recent elections have suggested. This is because of the Greens. In London they are up from 1.6% to 8.8%.
Long story short, that is one imaginary "rule".
More scams on the Climate Change front?
We should be immune to the scamming for funding trick by now.
The good news is that with so many constituency polls (127 constituencies polled) that you can have a detail look, in fact over the next few days I will write some interesting results when you analyze them all on a certain basis.
Not all apparently.
More generally, Labour will increasingly get blamed for everything the Tories do, as they must now be (having teamed up with them for indyref and above all the statement over the pound and then the Vow). So I'm not sure that what is bad for the Tories in Scotland is good for SLAB.
Sturgeon and Salmond are miles in front of the other leaders. In addition Murphy's Westminster reputation has not translated into visibility in Scotland with only 50 per cent recognition (Salmond is over 80).
One point worth noting Salmond is more popular among female voters +25 than male voters +20 but more popular among male voters than anyone else. This is even more pronounced for Sturgeon. These sort of ratings would be unrecognisable for any English leader with the possible exception of Boris Johnston. They will be of some importance in the election campaign.
The previous reluctance of female voters to back independence in the same percentage as male voters was often confused for refusal to back Salmond. This ICM poll rather puts that to rest.
What this discussion has shown is that there does seem to be real confusion in the question setting. There are some powers which are useless without other powers - for instance certain taxation ones. So one can legitimately say 'no thanks' and yet be pro indy. So none of us can draw too many lessons I suppose! Anyway goodnight - I have to join the family Scrabble.
Devomax on the ballot splits the question 13 different ways to christmas. Voting on it just puts off a further indy referendum.
Cameron was being what most of his contemporaries are not - a statesman - in framing the question and indeed pushing Salmond into asking it.
In or out. Simple. The vote went 'in'. The oil price went down.
Devomax simply gives Scotland the opportunity to vary how they tax themselves plus a bit more government responsibility.
However as you correctly say where we are now is the inevitable consequence of devolution.
It hardly matters how many SNP MPs vote against trident... the Labour and tory parties are in favour. But it does seem to me that activists have moved to the SNP because of trident and other lefty issues and now, shorn of any 'national' or sane self government aspirations or opportunities, the SNP can fantasise to their heart's content and keep the lefties salivating.
Life is easy when the only responsibility you have is to manage a glorified local authority with money allocated to you and an easy get out by saying 'its all their fault'.
Devomax will make life more difficult for the SNP.