Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crùbag

Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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%

Edited by HaikuHibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Well it wouldn't have won a majority in 1964 without them. It might have still formed the government, but it wouldn't even have been the largest party. That is a clear sense in which it could be said not to have been able to win without Scottish seats.

In the February 1974 election the result was a Labour minority government, relying on the failure of Ted Heath to secure confidence and supply from the Liberals, which he needed over and above the confidence and supply of the Ulster Unionists, which was pretty much guaranteed when the alternative was a Labour Government. Ted Heath wouldn't have needed confidence and supply from the Liberals if Scottish seats had been excluded in order to stay in office - he would have had enough with his 275 MPs, plus the assortment of Ulster Unionists from the UUP proper to the DUP and Vanguard, to bring him (just) over the line in any confidence vote.

What long-term dynamic that would have had is anyone's guess. It's possible that a narrow victory would have been enough for him to regain or reassert his control, enough to do slightly better in a follow-up election. We can only speculate. But the Scottish seats very clearly did change the dynamic, and made a Labour minority government a viable, if extremely short-term, solution. What is clear is that, unless your definition of winning an election is one that, for example, would mean arguing the SNP did not win the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary election, Labour very clearly were (probably) only able to form a minority government (and therefore on some level, "win") because of Scottish seats tipping the balance.

As for the October election, it's really quite simple. If your definition of winning is more demanding, such that Labour didn't "win" the February election, then Scottish seats very definitely were the difference between them "winning" and "not winning" the October one.

If you follow a definition of winning that says there are different degrees of winning (the simplest three variants of which are majority, forming the government or losing) then clearly both of those elections saw Scottish seats being material to the ability of Labour to "win" in the sense of either forming a government or fully being able to implement their programme for government.

Given that Labour have only formed the government after 7 of the elections including and since 1964, and in three of those elections Scottish seats have either been the difference between them having or not having a majority and/or forming or not forming the government, that is not exactly overwhelming evidence that Labour election victories don't depend on Scottish success.

For what it's worth, I don't think their paths back to Number 10, whether as a minority or majority government, run through Scotland going forward, but that's because of their collapse in Scotland and not because they weren't previously reliant on it for institutional, financial and strategic support. I also don't see the Tories winning big majorities any time soon again though. The days of large majorities are past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACTS ARE BIASED EH FIDE?

 

It was an attempt at being mildly humorous you jumper wearing, deposit losing, prep school, bookish arsehat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I used 'likely to vote' because that's what IPSOS and STV used for the headline figures.

The 'all voters' one is irrelevant.

As you say the figures are bizarre, I don't know if it's because the sub sample is so small and therefore may not be accurate. It is also possible that the figures are skewed by non-Scottish further and Higher education students studying in Scotland.

I'll be interested in any post- election breakdown of voting in age groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used 'likely to vote' because that's what IPSOS and STV used for the headline figures.

The 'all voters' one is irrelevant.

As you say the figures are bizarre, I don't know if it's because the sub sample is so small and therefore may not be accurate. It is also possible that the figures are skewed by non-Scottish further and Higher education students studying in Scotland.

I'll be interested in any post- election breakdown of voting in age groups.

 

All voters are not irrelevant. For the outcome of the election maybe they are. So, I don't think you should ignore them entirely, because they tell an interesting story. I suspect its partly to do with the small subsample, but the numbers of people who would vote Labour (and to some extent the SNP) but can't be arsed is absolutely staggering.

Edited by HaikuHibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the latest poll -

 

ChHRsDgWIAMsTPq.jpg

 

Willie Rennie there, up by four points to zero.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many party leaders will be in place in a few weeks time ? Your point is a very good one. Goldie jacked it after doing less badly than the rest.

Aye and I wonder whit happened tae that c**t?

She was still in the Scottish Parliament until it was dissolved at few weeks ago. It's not like she went anywhere in particular, what a bizarre statement for someone supposedly in the know about politics. 

You took from my remark that I didnae ken whit she was up tae.

Have ye never heard of a rhetorical question?

 

And for the record I've never ever claimed tae be 'in the know about politics.'

I've stated elsewhere that I dinnae need tae read manifestos as I ken since day one which party I 'm supporting.

I also stated elsewhere I don't buy newspapers so any political nous I have I obtain from the web and of course the unbiased opinions of the posters on these threads.

Regrettably your opinion isnae included :thumsup2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChDLKTzWUAAWGzJ.jpg

So 64% of people want Scotland to keep income tax rates the same as the rest of the UK, yet 75%, 60%, 57%, and 52% of the same people would like the Scottish Parliament to raise them in one way or another? Mental.

 

In fact, how exactly does the stay the same option total 121%? Were people in agreement and opposed at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 64% of people want Scotland to keep income tax rates the same as the rest of the UK, yet 75%, 60%, 57%, and 52% of the same people would like the Scottish Parliament to raise them in one way or another? Mental.

In fact, how exactly does the stay the same option total 121%? Were people in agreement and opposed at the same time?

Couldn't get my head round that myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 64% of people want Scotland to keep income tax rates the same as the rest of the UK, yet 75%, 60%, 57%, and 52% of the same people would like the Scottish Parliament to raise them in one way or another? Mental.

In fact, how exactly does the stay the same option total 121%? Were people in agreement and opposed at the same time?

Pollster: Okay, how many of you kids would like Itchy & Scratchy to deal with real-life problems, like the ones you face every day?

Kids: YAAAAYYYY!

Pollster: Ok. And who would like to see them do just the opposite - getting into far-out situations involving robots and magic powers?

Kids: YAAAAYYYY!

Pollster: So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show... that's completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?

Kids: Yeah! Good! And also, you should win things by watching!

Meyer: You kids don't know what you want! That's why you're still kids: 'cause you're stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll (of 6) #sp16 Polls. Fwork 1-25.4. Const/List Con 17/18 Lab 20/19 LD 6/6 SNP 52/45 Grn -/9 UKIP -/3

 

Seats: SNP 70, Lab 21, Con 23, LibDem 6, Green 9, UKIP 0

Edited by glasgow-sheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 64% of people want Scotland to keep income tax rates the same as the rest of the UK, yet 75%, 60%, 57%, and 52% of the same people would like the Scottish Parliament to raise them in one way or another? Mental.

In fact, how exactly does the stay the same option total 121%? Were people in agreement and opposed at the same time?

The pollsters were clearly too thick to set out the policy choices in one question: put garbage questions into a poll and you'll only get garbage results like the above.

BREAKING @tnsbmrb #SP16 seat prediction:

SNP 70(+1) LAB 27(-10) LIB 3(-2), CON 21(+6) UKIP 0(=) GREEN 8(+6)

Looks pretty realistic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit Kez is getting ripped by Sally Magnussen thats right Sally Magnussen,Sarwars coup cannae come quick enough for her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit Kez is getting ripped by Sally Magnussen thats right Sally Magnussen,Sarwars coup cannae come quick enough for her

 

Aye Sally has been taking lessons from Bernard  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...