Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Salt n Vinegar]

40 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

I've said it before and I will say it again, never underestimate the shitbaggery of the Scottish nation when push comes to shove.

It's a fair point and one with a bit of history behind it.  After the 1992 General Election, Jim Sillars referred to "90 minute patriots", in reference to folk vehemently supporting their national football team but reverting to placing their trust in London for 'important stuff'. 

I understand that there are over 50 areas of what would be regarded as  "normal" government activity that are reserved to Westminster. Wikipedia has the full list with statutory references (for the pedants). I'm not referring to micro-management minutiae making up the total number. One of the 50-odd is "fiscal, economic and monetary policy" which is about as meaningful and wide-ranging a grouping as you can get. As Gimli said in Lord of the Rings "that still only counts as one". Some other reserved highlights are - 

Immigration and nationality, illicit drugs, firearms, betting, gaming and lotteries, data protection, electricity, oil, gas, nuclear, energy efficiency, ports, air transport, employment and industrial relations, health and safety, job search and support. There's plenty more.

It seems to me that a Government in Scotland trying to improve the lot of the folk here could operate much more sensibly and in a more efficient, co-ordinated and consistent manner with these powers being here rather than at Westminster. Justice, health and policing are devolved, but firearms and illicit drugs are not? The other political parties castigate the SNP about drugs deaths, yet presumably will uphold to their final breath the constitutional right of Westminster to rule against decriminalisation of any drugs and deny even the experimental use of drug treatment rooms - within Scotlands borders. Unemployment is hardly a trivial issue, yet immigration, employment and industrial relations are reserved. Some might think the present distribution of the 'normal' government powers is eminently sensible. The arrangement seems pretty stupid to me. 

[John Lambies Doos]

Panelbase independence numbers being published later today. Preview stating they are better than the Scotsman commissioned poll, I'm going with 47% yes as a guess

[renton]

51 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Completely off topic but why would that be important to understand when most people that seemingly like Churchill praise him for his war time leadership not his political success? 

Again, off topic but Churchill's real accomplishment was his symbolism in 1940. 

His actual wartime leadership was exceedingly patchy, and he left the domestic policy to Atlee.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Pato said:

Probably because their knowledge of Churchill starts in 1940 and ends in 1945. He lost an election to a pacifist after the first world war, there's a long tradition of resisting his particular brand of politics (well, their was)

Which is fair enough if they're only interested in his leadership during the war.

I don't think the statue protectors would be fussed at all at the idea he was pumped in an election after the war. This is just something that makes bed wetters like Gordon continue to think they're above people whilst misrepresenting what those people actually care about. 

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, Pato said:

He lost the election in 45 for calling his own citizens Gestapo, I don't think someone protecting a statue would process that. I dunno I think it's worth getting a more holistic view of our heros.

I definitely agree generally speaking. I think on that specific point about his post war popularity it's not particularly an argument that those people will hear and understand so shouldn't be presented as some need to know bombshell like it was. If the famine didn't cancel him to those people then losing an election won't do anything. 

[G51]

8 minutes ago, Pato said:

He lost the election in 45 for calling his own citizens Gestapo, I don't think someone protecting a statue would process that. I dunno I think it's worth getting a more holistic view of our heros.

Would prefer not to have a more holistic view of Barry Ferguson tbh

[NotThePars]

Also protecting statues as some kind of defence of history is so funny because they are such (literally) ossifying views of historical figures that will never represent even a percentage of the people they're depicting.

Signed, 

A qualified historian who will be making a beeline for the Engels statue near his office first chance he gets.

[SANTAN]

10 minutes ago, Pato said:

It's not about cancelling. I don't really have a view on his statues other than it's fairly clear the kind of person who protects them now will have a selection of fascistic-adjacent views very close to those of the kind of person he would have been sending troops to kill in the 1940s. So who are they really protecting?

"It's a really important point for the statue botherers to understand -"

This was what I was initially responding to, I don't think it's important for those people to understand Churchil lost an election after the war when they regard him as a hero for what he apparantly did during the war. I think it's practically irrelevant. 

I think pointing out some of them act as you say closer to the people Churchill "fought against" is probably a more successful tactic if you're trying to get people to have a more nuanced approach on past figures. I can't really remember every day people having such strong opinions on Churchill since Britain started down the whole culture wars type patter 5 or so years ago. I think they're protecting "their side" more than anything. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Stormzy

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I think pointing out some of them act as you say closer to the people Churchill "fought against" is probably a more successful tactic if you're trying to get people to have a more nuanced approach on past figures. I can't really remember every day people having such strong opinions on Churchill since Britain started down the whole culture wars type patter 5 or so years ago. I think they're protecting "their side" more than anything. 

I think that is mostly true, aye. It's a culture war issue but polling pretty regularly put Churchill as the most popular Briton, didn't they? If it's become more contested or aggravating a topic then it's cus people have started pushing back against the hagiographical view of him.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

I think that is mostly true, aye. It's a culture war issue but polling pretty regularly put Churchill as the most popular Briton, didn't they? If it's become more contested or aggravating a topic then it's cus people have started pushing back against the hagiographical view of him.

Yeah I'd agree with that analysis and again point out the initial point I was disagreeing with was how much importance or impact his post war election success would have on statue protectors and their view on him, I'd say there are better places to start if your goal was to persuade people he's a wrong un. 

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, Stormzy said:

Yeah I'd agree with that analysis and again point out the initial point I was disagreeing with was how much importance or impact his post war election success would have on statue protectors and their view on him, I'd say there are better places to start if your goal was to persuade people he's a wrong un. 

Tbh, I'm at the point where if someone starts demanding we take a nuanced approach to historical figures then I say they have to do the same for comrade Stalin.

I was going to say Castro but I think he has to be in the consideration for history's biggest chad.

[SANTAN]

I've learned 3 new words from this discussion. 

"Ossify"

"Hagiographical" 

And "heterodoxical" 

Remember who you're speaking to here lads!

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Iain said:

Constituency polls say they can.

Based on a claim that the SNP will in fact call a second referendum. If they fail to do so because 'eh the polls don't look good and we're feart' then their support will fall like snow off a dyke over the next Parliament. Not least given the length of their spell in government. 

The shelf life for this middle way obfuscation strategy is fast approaching. 

[ayrmad]

Hopefully the folk trumpeting a consistent 60% for independence realise that that equates to 85 to 95% of those that are ever likely to vote Yes, fantasy land if you think such a high percentage of those available will support independence for any meaningful length of time. 

Taken for mugs and we're falling for it at every election. 

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Pato said:

Probably because their knowledge of Churchill starts in 1940 and ends in 1945. He lost an election to a pacifist after the first world war, there's a long tradition of resisting his particular brand of politics (well, there was)

Tonypandy was probably all forgotten about post-WW2 if you didn't have older relatives from mining villages basically, but Churchill was always hated in some parts of the UK.

[betting competition]

 

[GordonS]

People who praise Churchill aren't just praising his wartime leadership. They're idolising him, and either denying everything else he did or worse, diminishing how awful it was because they've chosen him as some sort of quasi-spiritual leader. It's classic tribalism - putting someone on a pedestal because of what you like about them, and then denying or downplaying their sins.

<<coughSALMOND>>

It's dangerous because it sends out a message that racism isn't that bad, or can be offset by being a good leader in war time.

Imagine he'd allowed thousands of Scots to die of starvation, to watch their children die in their arms, in living memory, in order to keep feeding the people of England. The only reason we're not equally as angry as we would be if he'd done that is because we don't give a fk about brown people.

[SandyCromarty]

3 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

It's a fair point and one with a bit of history behind it.  After the 1992 General Election, Jim Sillars referred to "90 minute patriots", in reference to folk vehemently supporting their national football team but reverting to placing their trust in London for 'important stuff'. 

I understand that there are over 50 areas of what would be regarded as  "normal" government activity that are reserved to Westminster. Wikipedia has the full list with statutory references (for the pedants). I'm not referring to micro-management minutiae making up the total number. One of the 50-odd is "fiscal, economic and monetary policy" which is about as meaningful and wide-ranging a grouping as you can get. As Gimli said in Lord of the Rings "that still only counts as one". Some other reserved highlights are - 

Immigration and nationality, illicit drugs, firearms, betting, gaming and lotteries, data protection, electricity, oil, gas, nuclear, energy efficiency, ports, air transport, employment and industrial relations, health and safety, job search and support. There's plenty more.

It seems to me that a Government in Scotland trying to improve the lot of the folk here could operate much more sensibly and in a more efficient, co-ordinated and consistent manner with these powers being here rather than at Westminster. Justice, health and policing are devolved, but firearms and illicit drugs are not? The other political parties castigate the SNP about drugs deaths, yet presumably will uphold to their final breath the constitutional right of Westminster to rule against decriminalisation of any drugs and deny even the experimental use of drug treatment rooms - within Scotlands borders. Unemployment is hardly a trivial issue, yet immigration, employment and industrial relations are reserved. Some might think the present distribution of the 'normal' government powers is eminently sensible. The arrangement seems pretty stupid to me. 

Excellent post.

[SandyCromarty]

5 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

You can't know that they're not rigged in the same way as he can't know that they are rigged. All I'd say is it's not in the pollsters interests to be so utterly wrong that it gets noticed and they lose their credibility as pollsters and, eventually, their revenue as people no longer see them as accurate.

The only way we will know is after the actual election. 

Polls can be loaded, areas where they are taken come into play.

Andrew Hawkins founder and Chief Exec of Com Res worked for public affairs consultancies in Brussels and London, clients included the Conservative party, The Times, ITN, Sunday Times and The Independent.

The Daily Mail is a major subscriber to Sevanta Com Res. however I'm not suggesting for one minute that...................................................................................

Edited April 29, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[GordonS]

11 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Polls can be loaded, areas where they are taken come into play.

Andrew Hawkins founder and Chief Exec of Com Res worked for public affairs consultancies in Brussels and London, clients included the Conservative party, The Times, ITN, Sunday Times and The Independent.

The Daily Mail is a major subscriber to Sevanta Com Res. however I'm not suggesting for one minute that...................................................................................

Are you aware that political polls are a trivial part of the work of polling companies, and probably none of their profits at all?

And when ComRes showed a 10 point lead for Yes in December, did you accuse them of loading the sample then?

Polling companies use political polls as a marketing tool. If they're close to the result of an election it helps them get business. The idea that the few tens of thousands (at most) they get from the Daily Mail each year would cause them to put at risk the millions they get from the agencies working with Sky, Sainsbury's, Proctor & Gamble etc is just obviously mistaken. They're not going to deliberately get polls wrong and end up looking like idiots come election time, while their competitors are much closer to the result.

You should join the YouGov panel and see what sort of things make up the vast bulk of their work. What did you watch on TV, what do you think about these brands, when did you last see an advert for them, it's all that kind of stuff.

Accusations of bias at the main polling companies are just conspiracy theories. Systemic inaccuracies, that's another thing though...