Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos Mori poll on Scotland
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos Mori poll on Scotland
The fieldwork for this poll was entirely after the publication of the White Paper, and for those wondering if the White Paper had any effect on the electorate, Ipsos-Mori notes
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/29/could-labours-polling-position-just-evaporate/
If and when the Tories start to draw level with Labour in the Great Britain-wide polling, just watch the transformation in the IndyRef figures. The fact that Cameron's Tories actually need a 7 point lead to win a majority in the HoC is not widely known and appreciated, so simply polling parity will do the trick. In the unlikely event that the Tories get a steady poll lead over Labour prior to September 2014 then people who have been backing No at today's preposterously short 1.14 will start filling their breeks.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/09/scottish-parliament-rejects-westminster-pay-rises
Compare and contrast:
'David Cameron will not rule out taking 11 per cent MP pay increase'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10505812/David-Cameron-will-not-rule-out-taking-11-per-cent-MP-pay-increase.html
David Cameron: the only politician who can make Ruth Davidson look competent.
David Cameron is the elephant in the IndyRef room.
MSPs get paid £53,091 pa.
MPs get paid £66,396 pa.
FM gets £129,998 pa.
PM gets £142,000 pa.
Given the vastly wider remit of Westminster MPs, it is obvious that MSPs are hideously overpaid and are supping on the taxpayer's tit whilst dining on the gravy train.
Or perhaps the salaries are not high enough for what is a very important job.
More brussel sprouts Rector ??
The stupid comment that they should be paid like ordinary people is exactly stupid. MP's [ some later on, Ministers, PM ] are not expected to take "normal" decisions.
What did an MP get paid in 1980 vs other public servants of the same salary in those days.
What are the comparisons today ?
Ministers, however, are ridiculously underpaid.
It would be surprising if this largesse was not having some effect on the polls. It is also surprising so little is being said about it.
On MPs pay I have plenty of sympathy. For the job they do and the hours and the pressure, the pay is low. However politically is beyond stupidity when ordinary people have less and less.
Grade comparisons are the worst way to determine salaries as it inevitably leads to a ratchet effect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521076/The-bosses-love-jobs-Brits-werent-LAZY.html
So, not the game changer it was cracked up to be then. - Unfortunate!
We have far too many backbench MPs and they are certainly not underpaid for what they contribute. I would actually cut their salaries but have more salaries attached to committees and other posts by which they contribute to the work of the HoC. If this means they have less time to be unqualified social workers and redirect their priorities so much the better.
Just compare the workload of a Labour MSP with a Labour MP for a Scottish constituency (Labour ones are the fairest comparison as they are all in opposition). The Labour MSP has ten times the workload of the Labour MP, yet the MP get paid more.
you don't think that might be a bit exaggerated Stuart, you know poetic licence writ large ?
Evidence please, for your assertion.
(Edit: in fact, both Scottish MPs and Labour MPs should get less, as the constituency workload is split between them).
Next for my Yvette bet to come in.
They believe what they want to believe. The real world very rarely impinges their view.
Next time you see Alistair Darling with a furrowed brow, remember that sentence.
I feel your pain Mr Dickson. : )
The only people who could settle the matter are Labour MSPs and MPs, and neither are likely to post here.
F1: the double points gimmick is cretinous, but at least the two mandatory pit stop idiocy has been voted down:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25310485
No weight limit change, sadly.
(It was also Straw Man attack Nr. 45,830.)
It's a potentially great sport ruined by a surfeit of rules and the idiots who run it.
Would you like to compare the cost of running the trough at Westminster with Holyrood.
Right just remind us is this a good thing ( SE Tory interferes in Indyref ) or a bad thing ( SE Tory interferes in Indyref ).
Maybe Eck could debate Boris, at least it would gives us all a laugh.
I agree with you regarding processional circuits, particularly new circuits and Monaco. Reducing aerodynamics and better circuit design would go a long way towards increasing natural overtaking. Excepting Texas (and perhaps the now defunct Turkey) every modern circuit seems utterly flat and with medium pace corners through which overtaking can't occur because of dirty air.
The FIA seem to be doing their best to bugger their golden goose.
Who says I don't go around Commando? ;-)
I'd love to compare the running costs. Do you have the figures (excluding the HoL)?
1- Do you accept that if the vote was tomorrow with this kind of polling then it would be a big vote for no?
2- can YES win without forming a coalition with people in other parties?
3-can you see hOw this might happen? The only MSP I've seen so far to come out as a rebel is a Green who is supporting no.
It looks to me that the yes campaign face a huge challenge in reaching non-SNP voters, I'd like no know what the strategy is to peel off e.g. labour voters as they look like the deciding group to me.
In some constituencies housing problems alone will account for many hours per week.
2. No (and please note that such coalitions already exist)
3. A few seconds Googling will help you out
Spot on: Labour voters are the key swing group in the IndyRef.
I can understand that you would like us to explain Yes strategy. But, as I'm sure you can understand, we prefer to let you find out the hard way.
In 2008 Westminster was circa £500M excluding HOL. Same year for Holyrood was £72M.
As for pay, I agree with those who say that MPs' pay is about right for the job whereas ministers are underpaid.
That said, we shouldn't be paying 'the going rate'. Serving in parliament is a public service and should be recognised as such. Were the government a private business, its executive chairman (which is essentially what the PM is), would probably have an annual salary of £5m+ going by the salaries of major UK companies and how much bigger the government is. Now, I'd certainly agree that £150k or so is on the low side but not by a huge amount. Something in the £200k-£250k seems about right to me. Not that now would be an ideal time to change it, politically.
I reject the monkeys and peanuts argument. If you pay gold, you get the avaricious (or perhaps, auricious). I don't believe there are many who are put off by the salaries. There might be quite a few put off by the demands and nature of the job, the demands of campaigning before it, or the attendant scrutiny that comes with it but those are different matters.
2. It is not about parties , the key will be how many Labour voters go for YES
3. They will not break cover till the tide has well turned, majority of the labour grandees will protect their jobs first.
These are very rough figures, but they seem to show that Holyrood costs much more per head.
Scottish MSPs: fleecing Scottish taxpayers. ;-)
2. But the SNP have made it about parties by conflating Yes with an SNP manifesto in the White Paper.
3. How will the tide turn if Yes is stuck fishing in an insufficiently large pond because it doesn't have the rods (i.e. personnel) to fish in other ones?
If you are trying to base a swingback theory on historical polling data, you need to interpret the data better!
November and December 2008 were Labour's best polling months in the whole of 2008/2009, with an average deficit of 8.5 and 4.6 points respectively. If you took December in isolation then you would postulate that there was a swing away from the government in the latters stages of the parliament!
However, the Conservative lead averaged 17.6, 15.7 and 11.6 in the three preceding months and 11.4, 14.3, 11.5, 14.9, 16.6, 14.6, 15, 15.7 and 12.8 in the first nine months of 2009. Taking the data as a whole, two things are clear: (i) there was a marked swingback to the Government from the mid-term polling; (ii) the swingback occurred well within the last 17 months.
The real question, though, is whether this tells us anything useful? I don't think it does, other than to dismiss your idea that it hasn't happened in the past. Based on average opinion polls during 2001-2005 there was very little swingback (unless, like you, one takes a very selective approach to your data). This time there could be none, or a lot, we simply don't know.
The swingback that occured in 2010 may have been influenced by a number of things, including the nature of the election campaign (in which there was a working assumption that the Conservatives would win and they were scrutinised accordingly), the Conservative's relatively poor campaign, Mandelson's very effective campaign, unwinding of some of the post-expenses polling bubble, and the innate dislike a large portion of the public have for the Tories. None of those (except, perhaps, the latter) will be exactly replicated in the next election. Instead we will have new drivers, which might, for example, include 2010 Lib Dems returning home and UKIP deflating (good for the Tories), a UKIP surge (good for Labour) and a stellar campaign by any of the big parties. We have not seen more than a glimpse of Labour's intended policies and they may be cheered to the rafters or openly heckled.
What should keep Labour awake at night is not the fear of dramatic swingback, but the slow erosion of their lead. We are still in mid-term, not campaign, mode, and their once steady double-digit lead has been steadily whittled down to mid-single figures.
Key findings:
The seasonally adjusted index increased by 3.2% between October 2012 and October 2013. There were increases of 2.7% in manufacturing, 13.4% in mining & quarrying and 8.8% in the water supply, sewerage & waste management sector. Offsetting these increases was a decrease of 9.9% in the electricity, gas, steam & air conditioning sector.
There was an increase of 0.4% in the index of production between September 2013 and October 2013. There were increases of 0.4% in manufacturing; 1.8% in the water, sewerage & waste management sector; and 0.9% in the electricity, gas, steam & air conditioning sector. Offsetting these increases was a decrease of 1.1% in the mining & quarrying sector.
Key findings:
The deficit of trade in goods and services for October 2013 was £2.6 billion, unchanged from the revised September 2013 estimate.
The deficit on trade in goods was £9.7 billion in October 2013. The trade position reflects exports minus imports. Exports of goods decreased by 1.3% between September and October 2013 to £24.7 billion. Imports for the same period fell by 1.9% to £34.4 billion.
Exports of erratics, which are defined as ships, aircrafts, precious stones and silver, increased by 24.9% between September 2013 and October 2013. Trade in oil can also be volatile, and this month exports of oil decreased by 11.7%.
In October 2013, exports of goods to the European Union (EU) decreased by £0.5 billion to £12.1 billion, with half of the decrease attributed to oil. Imports from the EU decreased by £0.2 billion to £18.5 billion. Overall the trade in goods balance with the EU reached a record high deficit of £6.5 billion.
In October 2013, exports of goods to countries outside of the EU increased by £0.2 billion to £12.6 billion. Imports decreased by £0.5 billion to £15.8 billion.
And on a three month basis:
The deficit on trade in goods increased by £2.9 billion to £29.5 billion in the three months to October 2013, when compared with the previous three months. Exports of goods in the three months to October 2013 decreased by 4.1% to £74.9 billion but were 1.1% higher when compared with the same three months in 2012. Imports of goods decreased by 0.3% in the three months to October 2013 to £104.4 billion but were 1.5% higher when compared with the same three months in 2012.
Exports to countries within the EU decreased by 5.6% to £37.5 billion in the three months to October 2013, reflecting a fall in oil exports. Exports to countries outside the EU fell by 2.6% to £37.4 billion in the same period. Imports from EU countries increased 1.7% in the three months to October 2013. Imports from countries outside of the EU decreased by 2.5% in the latest three months and by 3.1% on the same three months in 2012.
Main picture is of rapidly falling oil and gas exports/production and a weak Eurozone economy continuing to depress UK exports. Revisions upward to the balance of trade in Services and trade outside the EU are strong and mitigate the negative pressures but are not sufficient to balance them out.
Percentages - don't you just love them. They can make anything sound impressive if you have no idea what the start and end numbers are.
Whether it marks the start of a shift over the next few months remains to be seen, but I do think that the idea that Scots will make a historic decision to end a 300-year union on the short-term basis of prejudice against David Cameron is particularly amusing.
The Cons need to get a grip of this and quickly. I'm not a million percent sure they can do it without a rate rise which of course has other negative consequences.
Nothing really new here, Ashcroft denies that he said most kippers are disgruntled tories, etc....
It's the polls that count! Where have I heard that one before?
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/12/counting-the-kippers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=counting-the-kippers&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=9f7614efe0-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-9f7614efe0-66760489
I won't comment on the specifics of the referendum poll except to say it's encouraging to see such a high projected turnout. A high turnout (certainly over 80%) would add legitimacy to the result whichever way it goes.
Christmas shopping anecdotes - marvellous. Well, the Sainsbury's at Beckton was very busy on Saturday afternoon (but then it always is) and Wimbledon was quite busy on Sunday (but then two weekends before Christmas you'd be surprised if it wasn't). Nice afternoon weather-wise helped as well. Can't deduce much from that one way or the other.
You want some bad news?
Here you go then:
From Germany via digitallook:
Industrial production in Germany registered a surprise drop for the month of October, though the Ministry of Economy forecasts an expansion in the coming months.
The figure unexpectedly fell 1.2% on the month, after a revised contraction of 0.7% in September. The consensus had been looking for a 0.8% rise.
The German Economy Ministry admitted that it was a “weak start” to the fourth quarter, but noted that industry orders continued their upward trend and sentiment indicators signalled a growing confidence in the economy.
“Therefore, the manufacturing sector is like to expand production in the coming months”, the Ministry said in the report.
Now what was that you were saying about me being George Osborne's No 1 fan?
Winnie winning here.
It appears Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are missing the start of the Mandela memorial - stuck in traffic.
Ooops....
Having said that my guess is that over time this gap will narrow somewhat because we will find more exported services but it will remain huge and unsustainable. Either we improve our competiveness or our growth will fade. It is that simple.
One of the more important aspects of the Autumn Statement was the massive increase in export credit guarantees. If we are to maintain our standard of living in this country and are to continue spending anything like what we do on the NHS, benefits and pensions we must export more. Lots more. I don't think some pig semen going to China is going to cover it.
The wilful disregard of the balance of payments on the basis that it did not matter in a modern economy was not the least of Brown's mistakes.
Comic Relief money invested in arms and tobacco shares !
Red guns and fags day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/9563048/Alex-Salmond-admits-defeat-over-Scottish-independence-referendum-rules.html
The decline in oil and gas production is the single biggest reason for the decline in exports and rise in imports. 'Get fracking!' must be the response to that even if all it achieves is import substitution.
The areas targetted by the government are performing well - exports outside the EU, services, high-priority competitive lead industries - but the manufacturing base from which export goods derives starts from an historically low level and will take time to increase. The same doesn't apply to services and Osborne's tax concessions to key sectors of the City and promotion of London as a centre for Islamic lending and Renmimbi exchange and trading are examples of areas where significant short term growth can be achieved.