Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[WhiteRoseKillie]

17 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Which part of his post is "pish" exactly.

Surely it cannot be the bit about Corbyn being unelectable in middle England.

Because that bit is bang on.

Despite having most incompetent, useless, divided UK govt in living memory, the main opposition have made barely a dent in the polls. What does that say?

What, from this?

Middle England won't vote Corbyn into office so I don't think Labour will gain south of the border from the last GE where they performed better than expected.    Most switchers down south will go Tory to UKIP  if the government goes into the election offering a softer Brexit.    The Lib Dems should gain ground with calls for a peoples vote.      

In Scotland I can see Labour slipping a little and the SNP taking the votes that were offered because Corbyn became leader.      Quite possible the minority parties ( not Con, Lab)  could receive more than a 1/3 of all votes.  

1. "Middle England"? The majority of folk I speak to (in a public service of the "crown on the shoulder" type) have gradually come round to the idea that, much as they aren't impressed by Corbyn, a vote for the Tories (i.e. any non-Labour vote) simply promises more of the same shite. At least Labour are offering change, and an increasing number are willing to give them a chance. 

2. "Better than expected". By who, exactly? I had a nice wee spread bet with a work colleague when he said Labour would lose at least thirty seats. Three hundred and fifty quid later, he pays a wee bit more attention...

3. Why on earth would anyone switch to a single-issue party whose issue is no longer relevant - especially when the Tories are enacting policy the BNP and even NF would have hesitated to promote? 

4. I think you might underestimate the effects of the Lib Dems' betrayal on Tuition fees. People down here, especially those who were directly affected, their parents, and those who are now faced with the opportunity of Labour's free NES, will never vote for Cable's zombies.

5. I do not have the on-the ground knowledge of the issue in Scotland, although I do feel Labour took their voters for granted for far too long and opened the door for the SNP to take advantage. 

6. To suggest that the Tories and Labour won't amass 420 seats between them is frankly batshit mental. 

[git-intae-thum]

^^^^

Rose tinted specs of delusion

1) Middle England (ie the largest voting block in the UK) consistently votes Tory. The only time it has broke the mold in the last 40 odd years has been to elect a new labour party that was only slightly less right wing than the John Major tories they displaced.

Why should Scotland continue putting up with getting governments it doesn't elect. Bolt.

2) Peak Corbym and yet they still could not empty the most inept Tory govt in modern history. Says it all.

3) Thats just ignorant Britnat pish not worthy of comment.

4) who cares

5) You admit you do not have the on ground knowledge. You are correct.

6) Yep. You are almost certainly right on this point also.

[glasgow-sheep]

NEW POLL

Westminster voting intentions:

SNP 37% (nc)
Con 27% (+1)
Lab 22% (-4)
LD 7% (+1)
TIG 2% (-)
Grn 2% (nc)
UKIP 2% (nc)

Panelbase (1002 Scottish voters, 2-6 March 2019)
Chgs from Dec 2018

[glasgow-sheep]

ERZA POLL(IS), FINALLY
Panelbase, 2nd-6th March (Changes vs 5th Dec);

List;
SNP - 36% (-2)
Con - 26% (nc)
Lab - 19% (-3)
Lib Dem - 9% (+2)
Green - 6% (nc)
UKIP - 3% (+2)

Constituency;
SNP - 41% (nc)
Con - 27% (+2)
Lab - 19% (-4)
Lib Dem - 8% (+2)
Green - 3% (nc)
UKIP - 2% (+1)


Projecting Holyrood figures into seats (Changes vs 5th Dec)

SNP - 57 (-1)
Con - 35 (+1)
Lab - 24 (-2)
Lib Dem - 10 (+3)
Green - 3 (-1) https://t.co/fQnpbyqAvn

[BawWatchin]

It's official, the general Scottish population are idiots.

[Donathan]

If these seat numbers were to actually play out then Ruth could be FM as part of a unionist rainbow coalition

[BawWatchin]

6 minutes ago, Donathan said:

If these seat numbers were to actually play out then Ruth could be FM as part of a unionist rainbow coalition

An absolutely mental scenario, considering everything that has passed over the past serveral years.

[renton]

22 minutes ago, Donathan said:

If these seat numbers were to actually play out then Ruth could be FM as part of a unionist rainbow coalition

The precedent set by the 2007 result allows for the biggest party to rule as a minority government. So Davidson wouldn't get first shot at it. Bear in mind also the following: The SNP will either have blown it's load on IndyRef2 to a Death or Glory finish or will be using the election as a mandate for it.

1. In the former case where the good guys lose again, then IndyRef2 is off the table and assuming SNP support didn't collapse in light of that, then there is no compunction on Unionist parties not to work with the SNP on things like the budget, so no Indy majority not an issue.

2. In the former case where the good guys win, then SNP ride massive wave of support anyway.

3.  In the latter case, the SNP make an IndyRef2 mandate a cornerstone of their election, and if the electorate likes that idea, then these poll numbers end up looking low and SNP ride on back comfortably into power.

4. In the latter case, and the electorate don't like it the SNP probably still get returned as the biggest party but with IndyRef2 deid and buried then case 1 applies.

The only scenario in which those poll numbers are worrying is if the SNP do neither and fight a purely domestic election with a bunch of frustrated activists on one side and end up short of a pro Indy majority with a bunch of myopic frigid Unionists unwilling to compromise while IndyRef2 is still out there. That won't happen.

Worth also noting that despite Scotland's different electoral math, a Unionist coalition is basically not a sustainable option. Better Together ruined Scottish Labour and the Westminster coalition ruined the Lib Dems and even they aren't stupid enough to go into a coalition on a national platform where they can't hide.

Besides, these numbers, certainly the SNP and Tory ones are unchanged for about 6 months in Panelbase. No way of knowing how it'd go down in a live scenario but you'd only need a couple of points to the Greens on the List to recover a pro Indy majority. 

[Donathan]

7 minutes ago, renton said:

The precedent set by the 2007 result allows for the biggest party to rule as a minority government. So Davidson wouldn't get first shot at it. Bear in mind also the following: The SNP will either have blown it's load on IndyRef2 to a Death or Glory finish or will be using the election as a mandate for it.

1. In the former case where the good guys lose again, then IndyRef2 is off the table and assuming SNP support didn't collapse in light of that, then there is no compunction on Unionist parties not to work with the SNP on things like the budget, so no Indy majority not an issue.

2. In the former case where the good guys win, then SNP ride massive wave of support anyway.

3.  In the latter case, the SNP make an IndyRef2 mandate a cornerstone of their election, and if the electorate likes that idea, then these poll numbers end up looking low and SNP ride on back comfortably into power.

4. In the latter case, and the electorate don't like it the SNP probably still get returned as the biggest party but with IndyRef2 deid and buried then case 1 applies.

The only scenario in which those poll numbers are worrying is if the SNP do neither and fight a purely domestic election with a bunch of frustrated activists on one side and end up short of a pro Indy majority with a bunch of myopic frigid Unionists unwilling to compromise while IndyRef2 is still out there. That won't happen.

Worth also noting that despite Scotland's different electoral math, a Unionist coalition is basically not a sustainable option. Better Together ruined Scottish Labour and the Westminster coalition ruined the Lib Dems and even they aren't stupid enough to go into a coalition on a national platform where they can't hide.

Besides, these numbers, certainly the SNP and Tory ones are unchanged for about 6 months in Panelbase. No way of knowing how it'd go down in a live scenario but you'd only need a couple of points to the Greens on the List to recover a pro Indy majority. 

 

On the precedent point, yes Sturgeon would get the first chance to prove she has the house's confidence, but may find herself unable to do that. After every election there is a first minister vote where any MSP can stand and the Scottish Parliament votes who to appoint FM. If the three unionist parties were to rally around Ruth Davidson there is absolutely hee-haw that Sturgeon can do about it (If SNP + Greens don't have a majority)

 

I agree that this is fairly unlikely though, only way I see it is if they're standing to mandate indyref2 and the unionist parties view this is a vehicle to delay or prevent a second referendum.

[renton]

Just now, Donathan said:

 

On the precedent point, yes Sturgeon would get the first chance to prove she has the house's confidence, but may find herself unable to do that. After every election there is a first minister vote where any MSP can stand and the Scottish Parliament votes who to appoint FM. If the three unionist parties were to rally around Ruth Davidson there is absolutely hee-haw that Sturgeon can do about it (If SNP + Greens don't have a majority)

 

I agree that this is fairly unlikely though, only way I see it is if they're standing to mandate indyref2 and the unionist parties view this is a vehicle to delay or prevent a second referendum.

There is no way Labour actively back a Tory who probably came in second place for a national post like that. They'd abstain. 

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, renton said:

There is no way Labour actively back a Tory who probably came in second place for a national post like that. They'd abstain. 

Can that vote be abstained on?

[renton]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

Can that vote be abstained on?

Dunno, it's Labour, they'd abstain on abstaining as a matter of principle. Laws of politics suggest that nominating a Tory would absolutely bring down hellfire from the Main office however, and as I say the chances of that situation arising are pretty slim. It's either Indyref2 before '21 or standing on a IndyRef2 mandate at Holyrood '21. Either way it shakes up all those numbers.

[Donathan]

Yes you can obstain, this regularly happens. Typically each party leader stands and the entire party votes for them

 

2016: Nicola Sturgeon 63, Willie Rennie 5 (60 absentions)

2014: Nicola Sturgeon 66, Ruth Davidson 15 (47 absentions)

2011: Alex Salmond 68 (60 absentions)

2007: Alex Salmond 49,* Jack McConnell 46 (33 absentions, 2 Green MSPs voted for Salmond)

2003: Jack McConnell 67*, John Swinney 34, David McLetchie 19, Dannis Canavan 3 (5 absentions, Lib Dems supported McConnell)

[BawWatchin]

WIllie Rennie

[Donathan]

BTW, based on those list numbers in the poll, if article 50 ends up being delayed and the UK participates in this summer's European elections then the SNP will win a 3rd MEP and David Coburn will be out.

[Killie87]

I know Labour up here are in a bad way but if they did actually vote to put Ruth Davidson in power then they really would need to call it a day.

[Detournement]

16 minutes ago, Killie87 said:

I know Labour up here are in a bad way but if they did actually vote to put Ruth Davidson in power then they really would need to call it a day.

It will never happen other than in the minds of nationalist fantasists.

[Antlion]

3 hours ago, Detournement said:

It will never happen other than in the minds of nationalist fantasists.

The Union Jack-draped Little Briton ones you hang about with, or...? 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Antlion

[Detournement]

8 minutes ago, Antlion said:

The Union Jack-draped Little Briton ones you hang about with, or...? 

I don't hang about with any Union Jack types.

I was talking about mental Yessers.

[I'm Brian]

3 hours ago, Detournement said:

It will never happen other than in the minds of nationalist fantasists.

 

Of course these kind of things never happen