Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2011 Holyrood election: When Scottish Labour moved from
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2011 Holyrood election: When Scottish Labour moved from a 14pc YouGov lead to being 18pc behind in just 11 weeks
The chart shows the sequence of YouGov Holyrood regional vote shares for LAB and SNP in the eleven weeks running up to the May 2011 elections.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It was a showstopper.
With BBC in Glasgow so tightly controlled by ex labour man Boothman not sure that sort of media slip will be allowed to happen in 2014 or 2015.
McTernan confirmed one thing here in Oz; that the MSM can be manipulated if you have control of the message to influence subject matter that suits you.
The MSM made the mistake of covering the 2011 Scottish GE relatively fairly and reasonably. Result: SNP landslide.
They will not make the same mistake again. The MSM will do everything within their power to misrepresent the case for sovereignty, and to lie about what will happen if Scots vote No. Result: too close to call.
Betfair 75%+ 2.65
William Hill 66%+ 1.83
Paddy Power 64%+ 1.43
I got some cash on 75+ at Betfair when it was at 4.5, but liquidity was appalling then. Looking better now.
Indeed. Asking respondents how they would vote in an imaginary referendum being held tomorrow is one thing, but how that same person will actually cast their vote when the historic moment arrives in September is another matter altogether.
Here at PB there are two main focal points:
a) polling
b) MSM
ie. the air war.
But in practice, it is the ground war that will win both IndyRef2014 and UKGE2015. And PB almost never discusses the ground war.
100 Unionist toerag Scotsman articles or 100 Unionist propaganda BBC items are going to be no match come polling day to the influence and encouragement of friends, family, colleagues and aquaintances.
To understand the IndyRef, you have to understand:
a) word of mouth
b) solidarity
If YES loses the vote, it will be in large part due to over enthusiastic Independence supporters failing to engage with NO arguments and calling anyone who disagrees with them Toerags and Union propagandists. You come across like born again evangelicals.
All you're doing is pushing opposission underground where you can't engage with it.
You need to turn it down a notch or two.
Worth mentioning that the final result, whilst out of whack with the polling, was pretty much in line with the trend the polls were showing.
This may mean that (for argument's sake) a poll one week before the Date of Destiny [sounds like dinner with Beyonce...] showing Yes 40 and No 60 could indicate a very close contest, assuming prior polls had been better for No.
"All you're doing is pushing opposission underground where you can't engage with it."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100250572/fear-in-the-shadow-of-salmonds-ire/
Please note that I insulted two organisations: the Scotsman and the BBC. They have, deservedly, had far worse insults thrown at them. They are big boys in a tough branch and probably could not give a toss.
Please note that I did NOT "call everyone who disagrees with me" a toerag or a propagandist.
Please note that the large group labelled "people who disagree with me" includes my wife, my children, my parents, my sister, my cousins, aunts, wider family, colleagues, friends and aquaintances. For obvious reasons I never refer to these people as toerags or propagandists. Instead, I listen to them, I engage with them, I discuss with them. I care for them, respect them, like them, and love some of them. And the feelings are mutual.
Just because I am rude about the Scotsman on a silly blog thread does not mean that I do not know how to win hearts and minds among the people who actually have an IndyRef vote.
I am not alone. Far from it.
And please note that pretty much the only discernable, reliable, above MOE trend within the IndyRef polling is the steady move from NO to DK. That ought to make current No backers nervous. Especially at the laughably short prices currently on offer (eg. Hills and SkyBet at 1.2)
You are paying far too much attention to the air war. As I said at the beginning of the thread, it is the best ground war that will win the IndyRef.
By their very nature, nearly all PB commenters are very poorly placed to comment on the ground war. And boy, does it show.
And of the few well-placed PBers, most are of the No peruasion, so it is virtually impossible for disinterested observers to get quality, balanced IndyRef insight here at PB.
Eck doesn't care if his claims are 100% true or just wishful thinking. Eck simply wants 50% +1 of those voting on 18th September next year and more than ever I fear he will achieve it.
Not true of secondary questions, though. Today's YouGov (which seems to confirm the shift back to a 6-7 lead) appears to have sharp anti-Government moves (e.g. approval is down a net 9 over yesterday, the government's economic rating down a net 5 over last week), but the polls that compares with had sharp pro-Government moves. This can indicate that the sample is unusual or just that people's mood varies without charging VI much.
What makes you think that?
You are one of very few PBers with on-the-ground insight into the IndyRef, so it would be useful if you could explain for disinterested observers (and interested ones) why you think Salmond will achieve a Yes vote.
It's quite a big strategic mistake for YES to let this stuff happen. Personally, I think it will be close and these voters will decide it. Currently they are being pushed away.
Why are Scots of the impression that the Universe revolves around the region and parish-council? Have your vote; negotiate in good faith. Don't expect London to notice when you are gone....
http://svenskopinion.nu/
Basically a stable left-wing lead though the far-right Swedish Democrats are holding up well at 10%. There is a 4% threshold for seats and two of the centre-right parties are just above it.
How will that play, PR-wise?
On the very rare occasions I hear it discussed, it revolves around "bye,bye" type comments. Nobody appears to care one way or the other, they just want the whining to stop.
http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/inspector-inspect-thyself/
The tories in Scotland, over 400K of them, will vote no in very large numbers and no ground war will be required to turn them out. We have been voting with no party structure to talk of for years. The LibDems are almost as solid. Labour is the key which is why we had SNP Councillors pretending to be "Labour for Independence". That is the key battleground and neither side has won decisively yet.
Those with skin in the game, the HRTs who fear the worst, will vote no. My only disappointment is that there is not a hell no option. Those who don't do so well out of the status quo, natural Labour supporters, are not so sure. They are used to believing tosh and in money trees. They are open to persuasion and I do not underestimate Salmond in this respect. I still think it will be close.
This is far from unusual. The 1992 case is notorious - and there were polling methodological problems - but even allowing for that, there was undoubtedly a swingback from the situation in, say, mid-1991: the by-election and local election results show that clearly enough. Likewise in 2010, when the Clegg surge following the first debate dissolved away on election day as voters drifted back from the unknown of the Lib Dems to the known or near-known of the two main parties. Even in 1997, many senior Labour politicians were expecting at best a narrow majority before polling day.
How does that play for a referendum? The logical answer is that it should benefit No. Clearly, referendums for change can be and are won, but usually only when that clear public mood is apparent well in advance; I'm struggling to think of an example where there was a rapid and late shift from the status quo to change, without some major prompting factor (i.e. where it was simply campaigning-as-normal).
They need to find a real argument for why anybody would want to remain tied to Westminster
Scott as you well know she was unable to come up with any evidence of her supposed threats , it was all hot air and lies.
To counter it I think Yes need some proper FUD of their own. One thing they should certainly be doing is talking up the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, since Cameron and Farage will probably add a lot of fuel to that fire during the Euro campaign.
It reinforces the well known fact that BT is just a London fronted organisation , almost 100% funded by people who have no vote or say in the referendum. It will be seen as usual, unionists looking for favours and gongs.
BT is a joke.
I believe you are confusing 'London' with 'Labour' And yes you do have something Labour wants.
The 40 gift wrapped no questions asked Labour MPs you send to westminster every five years.
However I had experience of working in a private hospital where consultants turned up very late or very learly on weekdays and certainly Saturday mornings.
Goodness me, look at you, branding millions of children as 'losers' at the age of 11, just because they can't pass a few examinations.
Perhaps we should brand the millions you would dump into a new generation of secondary moderns 'loser schools'.
Academic prowess is one route to success, but by no means the only one. I've lost count of the number of successful businessmen biogs I've read that start with 'dropped out of school at 15'.
That said, I am increasingly impressed by the Lansley reforms, and how they are working on the ground. It is the most positive atmosphere when negotiating with the CCGs for over a decade. I think Norman Lamb is doing a great job.
For a quick divorce I would be happy to cede all the oil and take on all the debt. Just go
There is surely a danger of border posts, there certainly will be if Scotland joins Schengen. In any case, if you want independence, surely you are happy to have the trappings that goes with it, such as border posts. If not, why not?
"Being chucked out of EU" - Scotland would have to apply to join. You might be able to conduct negotiations at the same time you conduct negotiations with the UK, but there is no precedent, and countries like Spain have a vested interest in making it as difficult as possible. At the moment only independent countries have applied to join the EU, which might mean you would be outside it for as long as it takes to conduct negotiations.
Expensive mobile calls - well, providers would establish their own tariffs for the new Scottish market. It is possible that some might have joint UK-Scotland tariffs, others might not. Some might make you pay roaming charges. It's an unknown - it's possible someone might offer a particularly cheap tariff for Scotland only.
Using the pound - we can't stop you, but neither can you demand an input into the Bank of England. You want to join the EU, and at the moment all new entrants have to join the Euro. You might get grandfather rights, you probably won't.
Supermarket prices rising - I believe the point is that distribution costs are higher in Scotland and the supermarkets are unlikely to want to continue to pay for them out of a general UK budget as at present. Of course where there is effective competition prices might not rise much.
Most of these are unknowns. It's complacent to say none of them will be a problem, just as it's scaremongering to say they definitely will be. I suppose it depends on how much Scots voters are prepared for a step into the unknown.
I don't think the thread head is quite saying that. Of course the polls may change over time and I'm sure they will but simply implying they're bogus shows up your lack of an argument. I would be delighted to see a No vote as it would be great for the rest of the UK - its the Scots you need to convince - not the English.
EU - having been in it for over 40 years and given the natural resources , it will be a painless transfer between YES vote and 2016.
Roaming - EU have made it illegal so just stupidity
Pound - rump UK will not cut off its nose to spite its face. Plenty in EU who are not in Euro and will never join
Supermarkets was just a plain lie , nobody has any idea on the costs as food goes both ways and given the amount of Scottish goods going south it could be up or down in both Scotland and England. Competion would mean in practice that they would be out of business quickly.
ONE thing is certain , we will get ever more budget cuts from Westminster.
Nobody is trying to convince the English. It is a Scottish matter for Scottish voters. I am only giving my personal opinion which is allowed on here despite some posters wishing it otherwise, I am not in the campaign in any way.
If you want to hear the argument go and look for it yourself, if my opinion offends you tough.
Yawn we did all this: https://www.facebook.com/bettertogetheruk/posts/510373055713007
You didn't seriously think they were wearing those rosettes did you? They were added to the picture for identification purposes.
And of course Eck is right when he says that we will reach an agreement with the EU (despite Spain), with rUK about using their currency, about using their lender of last resort, about our share of the national debt, about pensions, about border issues when we are apparently going to have different immigration policies, about a new regulator of financial services, about what interest rates are going to be, with NATO and with everyone else who we need to reach an agreement with Scotland. Who can doubt such honest fellows?
Which the UK currently has a trade-deficit in. According to Al-Beeb and a bit of matriculation a barrel of Brent [mixed] sells at £66.70.
IIRC DavidL has already highlighted the risks in 2014 from QE(X) unwind from Septica. Should China stumble (simultaneously as America become on-stream in Shale exports) we could see import substitution and a tumbling of oil to £30/barrel: Not that this should stop the people in Scotland feckin'-orf!!!
It might be possible to mix streams but why would you want to hold back the clever pupils?
All the pupils at the school already know who the thickies are and treat them accordingly.
There is no shortage of teachers.
What would be the point of offering, say, Further Maths at A level in a 6th form SM when few if any pupils would have either the ability or interest in taking it?
0/10 You clearly haven't done your homework, see me after class for detention and in the meantime stand in the corner with the dunces cap on.
On the pound, I don't see why we need to allow you access to the decision making process. Your position would be like Kosovo, which uses the Euro but has no input to the European Central Bank. Tenable, but I would have thought either having your own currency or formally joining the Euro would be preferable.
Supermarkets - yes I did say it was an unknown. Surprised if you have effective competition in Scotland though outside the central belt and other large towns & cities. I would have thought the distribution cost from depots to stores would be well known, and your argument actually talks about import/export costs between England and Scotland so I guess you are conveniently trying to ignore this.
The EU is not making roaming illegal, simply capping the cost (although I admit I was unaware by how much and how quickly, I just had to look it up on wikipedia). Only one of my arguments involved roaming though. In any case, I don't think the EU is forcing operators to include roaming in packages, so those people who get "free" data, texts and minutes still have to pay extra when abroad. [Although I might review whether I continue with the Vodafone Eurotraveller package (£2 a day for effectively unlimited use abroad) or go onto PAYG for roaming after July 2014.]
Budget cuts? Of course. I thought you were a fairly right-wing SNPer and would be all in favour of them.
In its heyday (the late 1940's) grammars were producing well educated kids. Look at our position in world education today!
From Wiki below:
"There were more than 1,200 maintained grammar schools, which were fully state-funded. Though some were quite old, most were either newly created or built since the Victorian period, seeking to replicate the studious, aspirational atmosphere found in the older grammar schools.
There were also 179 direct-grant grammar schools, which took between one quarter and one half of their pupils from the state system, and the rest from fee-paying parents. They also exercised far greater freedom from local authorities, and were members of the Headmasters' Conference. These schools included some very old schools encouraged to participate in the Tripartite System. The most famous example of a direct-grant grammar was Manchester Grammar School, whose headmaster, Lord James of Rusholme, was one of the most outspoken advocates of the Tripartite System.[15]
* No doubt you'll buy a McClaren (Home-Counties) when Wee-Fr'Eck delivers independence. A suitable home for your personalised number-plate, no...?
http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/
http://www.oil-price.net/
[Oh, and all those wastrels in East Kilbride! :P ]
You are offering a Wee-Timmy bet. Offer odds; make it a charity bet; call me back when you have a reasonable offer....
p.s. There should be an apostrophe in "dunces cap".
You misunderstood the point. How can I explain my hypothesis...?
Hmm...,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc
Events, dear boy; events....
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan