Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[AMMjag]

It's been clear for a few months now that Labour are finishing third. All thanks to the same Labour British nationalists who labelled the SNP 'Tartan Tories' converting to the, erm... Tories.

Increasingly convincing evidence that the union is now very much a conservative national symbol; as if there was ever any doubt.

[lichtgilphead]

As far as I'm aware, every GE Labour has won in modern history, it would have won even if not a single seat in Scotland had been red.

Nonsense!

 

1964 - result Labour majority of 4. Would have been Conservative majority of 1 without Scottish MPs

 

February 1974 - result was Labour minority government - 33 votes short. Would have been Conservative minority without Scottish MPs.

 

October 1974 - result Labour majority of 3. Would have been Labour minority (8 votes short) without Scottish MPs.

 

Plus

 

2010 - With no Scottish MPs, Cameron would have had an overall majority of 19 and no need to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.

 

1964

If you remove the Scottish seats, the Conservative Party DID NOT have a majority.

 

At that time, they were in coalition with the Scottish Unionists, the Ulster Unionists & the National Liberals. If you remove the Scottish seats, they would still have to rely on UU & NL votes to have your notional majority of 1. However, the Speaker at that time was a Conservative MP, so no majority would have existed. 

 

Assuming that the Liberals sided with Labour, you would have had the ultimate in hung parliaments. Alternatively, the Liberals would have had to have sided with the Tory/Unionist coalition to keep Labour out. In either scenario, I can't see a stable government being formed.

 

February 1974

Labour didn't win the election. It was a hung parliament.

 

October 1974

Result was Labour 319, Conservatives 277, Liberal 13, SNP 11, Others 15

Without Scottish seats, Labour 278, Conservative 261, Liberal 10, Others 15

 

IMO, the result would have been to accelerate the formation of the Lib Lab pact

 

2010

Again, Labour didn't win the election. It was a hung parliament.

 

At best, therefore, Antlion's contention is correct in 3 of the 4 "exceptions" you describe, and the 1964 result you describe involves 2 parties that haven't contested seats in over 50 years - hardly "modern history"

[Ad Lib]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, lichtie, but the National Liberals were scarcely anything other than an annex of the Conservative Party by 1964, and the Ulster Unionists went to the electorate under the explicit premise of an electoral pact with them. They were, for all functional purposes, the same party. It's about as meaningful in that instance to say that they weren't the same party as saying that candidates standing under the Co-Operative Party label weren't or aren't Labour MPs.

[lichtgilphead]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, lichtie, but the National Liberals were scarcely anything other than an annex of the Conservative Party by 1964, and the Ulster Unionists went to the electorate under the explicit premise of an electoral pact with them. They were, for all functional purposes, the same party. It's about as meaningful in that instance to say that they weren't the same party as saying that candidates standing under the Co-Operative Party label weren't or aren't Labour MPs.

 

No your absolutely irrelevant & tedious nitpicking is correct.

 

I would agree that the SU, UU & NL intended  to form a coalition in 1964. That does not invalidate my point that they were not "Conservatives" as suggested by BB. More importantly, my electoral arithmetic is correct, and there was not a Conservative coalition majority.

 

Thanks for the input.

[Ad Lib]

No your absolutely irrelevant & tedious nitpicking is correct.

 

I would agree that the SU, UU & NL intended  to form a coalition in 1964. That does not invalidate my point that they were not "Conservatives" as suggested by BB. More importantly, my electoral arithmetic is correct, and there was not a Conservative coalition majority.

 

Thanks for the input.

For all practical purposes at the 1964 election they were, and were understood by the electorate to be, Conservatives in all but name.

[StreetwiseHercules]

As they're currently doing with Ruthie, the media seem hellbent on accompanying every mention of the Baroness with some comment about her being hugely popular and liked in Scotland even if her party wasn't. I have never seen why, as she didn't really show up on my radar until the run up to the referendum, and when she did it was as a typical Tory shill, albeit in the body of the headmistress from the original St Trinian's movies.

Davidson only became an MSP in 2011 by accident after Malcolm McCaskill was deselected from the Tory list.

Until then she has zero political career beyond being a losing candidate multiple times.

She gets a really easy ride from her media chums.

[lichtgilphead]

For all practical purposes at the 1964 election they were, and were understood by the electorate to be, Conservatives in all but name.

 

1) Including the UU? 

 

2) Would this Conservative coalition have had a majority of 1 as suggested by BB?

 

Please stop ignoring point 2 above

[Ira Gaines]

For all practical purposes at the 1964 election they were, and were understood by the electorate to be, Conservatives in all but name.

Bit like you then.

[Mr Bairn]

Absolute scenes if the Tories actually finish second

 

 

Jelly and ice cream all round, imo

[Ad Lib]

1) Including the UU? 

 

2) Would this Conservative coalition have had a majority of 1 as suggested by BB?

 

Please stop ignoring point 2 above

1. I would say so, yes. Less so than the National Liberals, but still in essence, yes. They took the whip and they stood on a joint platform.

2. It depends on what you mean by majority, and depending on what definition you use, whether the Speaker was prepared to resign his position, and what the party affiliation of the Deputy Speakers were. They of course don't resign the whip, but they do withdraw from political activities in the House and their recusal could have the effect of giving a bare minority a working majority in much the same way as abstentionism can.

What is clear is that the Scottish seats altered the result of the 1964 election. Labour would have been denied a majority but for them and would not have been the largest party. Irrespective of whether or not they ended up forming the government, be it by confidence and supply or a coalition, that is functionally a different election result.

[StreetwiseHercules]

Will be lovely to see the LibDems finishing 5th.

[John Lambies Doos]

Bit like you then.

This

Ad lib the tory...

[John Lambies Doos]

Labour ) Lib Dems ) kez )

[Gordon EF]

I reckon Labour are jealous that Hibs have their own phrase describing abject and hilarious failure and are aiming to introduce 'SLABing it' into common use by the end of the decade.

[GTG_03]

1.SNP

2.Tories

3.Labour

4.Greens

5.Lib dems

Oosh! Would be glorious

[Granny Danger]

Just had a look at the tables for the STV poll.

Of those in the 16 - 24 age group who said they were likely to vote:

SNP - 33%

Labour - 26%

Tories - 26%

ETA that was the constituency vote. For the list vote

SNP - 42%

Labour - 13%

Tories - 24%

[lichtgilphead]

What is clear is that the Scottish seats altered the result of the 1964 election. Labour would have been denied a majority but for them and would not have been the largest party. Irrespective of whether or not they ended up forming the government, be it by confidence and supply or a coalition, that is functionally a different election result.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree whether the UU were standing on a joint platform - it certainly wasn't a joint manifesto. Northern Ireland is only mentioned 2 or 3 times in the '64 Conservative manifesto (I can't find the UU manifesto, so can't comment on their specific proposals)

 

I addressed the point regarding the election result in my initial reply to BB when I stated that it would have been the ultimate hung parliament  or a "Con"/Lib coalition government. I don't disagree that the result would have changed - what I specifically disagreed with was BB's contention that the removal of the Scottish seats turned a Labour majority into a "Conservative" majority. Nothing you have posted changes my view.

[Ad Lib]

We'll have to agree to disagree whether the UU were standing on a joint platform - it certainly wasn't a joint manifesto. Northern Ireland is only mentioned 2 or 3 times in the '64 Conservative manifesto (I can't find the UU manifesto, so can't comment on their specific proposals)

 

I addressed the point regarding the election result in my initial reply to BB when I stated that it would have been the ultimate hung parliament  or a "Con"/Lib coalition government. I don't disagree that the result would have changed - what I specifically disagreed with was BB's contention that the removal of the Scottish seats turned a Labour majority into a "Conservative" majority. Nothing you have posted changes my view.

Disagreeing with the specifics of that contention doesn't invalidate the generality of his point, though, which is that Scottish seats clearly have done and do have material effects on the results of several UK Parliamentary Elections in modern times. While 1964 is probably stretching it a bit, it's not *that* unreasonable to say about 50 years or so constitutes modern times, even though a lot has changed in terms of demographic and party affiliation and alliances since then.

[Antlion]

Disagreeing with the specifics of that contention doesn't invalidate the generality of his point, though, which is that Scottish seats clearly have done and do have material effects on the results of several UK Parliamentary Elections in modern times. While 1964 is probably stretching it a bit, it's not *that* unreasonable to say about 50 years or so constitutes modern times, even though a lot has changed in terms of demographic and party affiliation and alliances since then.

The discussion was whether or not Labour needs Scotland's seats to win elections.

[HaikuHibee]

Just had a look at the tables for the STV poll.

Of those in the 16 - 24 age group who said they were likely to vote:

SNP - 33%

Labour - 26%

Tories - 26%

ETA that was the constituency vote. For the list vote

SNP - 42%

Labour - 13%

Tories - 24%

 

That's likely to vote. Still pretty fucking bizarre. This is all voters.

 

 

16-24 year-olds

 

Constituency

Tories - 17%

Labour - 22%

SNP - 51%

 

List

Tories - 6%(!)

Labour - 31%(!)

SNP - 57%