All the usual caveats apply, but this poll from YouGov is, on the face of it, very good news for the Conservatives in that if replayed in the real world, it would deliver an absolute majority of close to 100. Other interesting point to note is their excellent performance in Scotland (Nats 30%, Cons and Labour tying on 28%) and Midlands/Wales (thumping Labour 48-30).
Yes, it is (especially for Scotland) a smallish sample, but even so, combined with other recent opinion polls it would seem to indicate the Brown Bounce is well and truly over.
But let’s move into the territory of hypothesis and heresy, let’s say the poll has come true, what would such a landslide mean for the Union?
1.England would once again be governed by the party it voted for.
2.Conversely and obviously, that would mean N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be governed by not the party they voted for. However, there would be a healthy number of Conservative MPs being returned by Scotland and Wales (and hopefully) also Northern Ireland. The UK would be governed by a truly UK-wide party.
3.The SNP accumulating the highest vote of any party in Scotland would, no doubt, be sold as a propaganda victory by Salmond. But 30% isn’t going to win them their referendum. And a greatly increased Tory vote would surely remove any potential damage arising from “Scotland being governed by the English Tories” jibe.
4.A majority of that size would leave the DUP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP with zero bargaining power at Westminster; the Tory MPs being returned in all three countries will be calling the shots, not the regionalists.
5.The UK would be governed by a party which is Unionist by conviction rather than, as it is presently, one which is Unionist merely for the sake of saving their own skins, seats and expenses.
From a purely parochial point of view, I hope Gordon Brown will have seen this report and panicked. A jittery Gordon isn't going to call an election this year and that can only be good news for the continuing Conservative/UUP project which, I suspect, needs a lot more time to gell together and to develop strategy and policies, not to mention the choosing of suitable candidates.
Correction
As per usual a case of “more haste, less speed”; the 30% I attributed to the SNP is actually for “Others”, a category which includes not just them, but also the Greens, BNP etc. The SNP are rated at 27%.
18 comments:
"3.The SNP accumulating the highest vote of any party in Scotland would, no doubt, be sold as a propaganda victory by Salmond. But 30% isn’t going to win them their referendum."
According to electoral.calculus.co.uk it would leave the Nats with 11 seats to the Tories' 12, which would have a spectacular up-shutting effect on His Immensity.
But, sadly, this has "rogue" written all over it.
I suspect you're probably right, this from exactly the same polling co, but on the Euro elections:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/files/yougov-poll-for-gv-tpa.xls:
has the Tories at 11%! Labour, SNP 35% each.
Both samples are far too small ( about 200 or so).
Sounds very much an unreliable poll.
Labour will have the lion's share of the seats in Scotland regardless of when the next UK election is called thanks to the wonders of the voting system.
The SNP will regain their position as number 2 behind Labour in terms of the vote (the Lib Dems came second in the last UK election).
In terms of the seats however despite Salmond's rhetoric about winning 20 seats, I doubt they will win more than 12 and Glasgow East will not be one of them. Margaret Curran (who is running for Labour again) can start picking her staff now.
The Tories will probably take at most 6 but I think 4 is a more likely number with the bulk of these seats being in the south of the country.
The Lib-Dems due to their imbedded support in the Highlands, North-East Scotland and NE Fife will remain more or less the same in terms of seats.
"3.The SNP accumulating the highest vote of any party in Scotland would, no doubt, be sold as a propaganda victory by Salmond."
Denial of such a victory would be worthwhile, as it would in NI and Wales.
"5.The UK would be governed by a party which is Unionist by conviction rather than, as it is presently, one which is Unionist merely for the sake of saving their own skins, seats and expenses"
For a man who quotes Carson I am surprised by your easy faith in the Conservatives.
>>1.England would once again be governed by the party it voted for.
2.Conversely and obviously, that would mean N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be governed by not the party they voted for.<<
Rather sums up/exposes the priorities of Irish/Scottish and Welsh Unionists Oneil, Engerland uber alles well done!
>>However, there would be a healthy number of Conservative MPs being returned by Scotland<<
C'mon man in the preceding para you had conceded that it was a small sample in Scotland so how can you jump to this conclusion? In any event name your healthy number, I smell a wager ;¬)
>>3.The SNP accumulating the highest vote of any party in Scotland would, no doubt, be sold as a propaganda victory by Salmond. But 30% isn’t going to win them their referendum.<<
Wow! you lasted till number 3 before the Nat bashing commenced. So let's sum up your reasoning, a Nationalist victory in Scotland would be turned into propoganda yet a Tory victory in England is what?
>>And a greatly increased Tory vote would surely remove any potential damage arising from “Scotland being governed by the English Tories” jibe.<<
Ahhhh I see, no need for Tory propoganda.................they have you lol.
And so it goes on almost sexual in in it's futuring. Haud yir horses ma man you have still to achieve the goals that your fantasies are based on.
The above was me
Denial of such a victory would be worthwhile, as it would in NI and Wales.
I asked before Fair Deal whether your eckon there should be also Unionist Unity (and pacts) in Scotland and Wales-that seems to be what you're implying here?
For a man who quotes Carson I am surprised by your easy faith in the Conservatives.
Carson's quote relates obviously to the setting up of Stormont and I thought it was a nice touch of irony bearing in mind I think it was Robinson who claimed him as a "devolutionist"/Ulster Home Ruler.
Politics change and political parties change, bearing in mind Carson's beliefs on the Union, do you think he would find his place today in the DUP or the UUP/Conservatives?
Rather sums up/exposes the priorities of Irish/Scottish and Welsh Unionists Oneil, Engerland uber alles well done!
The English nationalists would be probably disagree on that one!
C'mon man in the preceding para you had conceded that it was a small sample in Scotland so how can you jump to this conclusion? In any event name your healthy number, I smell a wager ;¬)
I did also say we were moving into the area of hypothesis and heresy! I'll get back to you on that healthy number (bearing in mind that returning 2 MPs would be a 100% improvement on what they've already got)
Wow! you lasted till number 3 before the Nat bashing commenced. So let's sum up your reasoning, a Nationalist victory in Scotland would be turned into propoganda yet a Tory victory in England is what?
Saying Salmond engages in the odd bit of propagandising is hardly disputable or even nat-bashing.
The Tories would probably be quite happy to return to power with a large majority at Westminster; but if they do, with will have to be a much larger share of the popular vote than the SNP will get. I can't really see why they'd need to propagandise in that case?
"I asked before Fair Deal whether your eckon there should be also Unionist Unity (and pacts) in Scotland and Wales-that seems to be what you're implying here?"
Sorry I mustn't have seen that question apologies for failing to reply.
At Westminster if needs be yes. Their consideration would probably be of a greater priority in Scotland than Wales. They could prevent/seriously reduce SNP expansion at the next Westminster election and even have them having to work hard in the ones they already hold.
Unfortunately when you suggest pacts here the s and b words appear very rapidly with the assumption it is about communalism rather than deploying a sensible and practical tool.
At Westminster if needs be yes
Do you mean Westminster elections or in the House of Commons? If it's the former, would you seriously be asking the Conservatives, Labour and the LDs to have joint candidates where a seat was in danger of falling to the SNP?
Unfortunately when you suggest pacts here the s and b words appear very rapidly with the assumption it is about communalism rather than deploying a sensible and practical tool.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "s and b', South Belfast? I think now in a NI context it is more about communalism- let the voters decide with the widest choice- if there is a better candidate, that overrides party preferences, then the electorate will vote for them-
"If it's the former, would you seriously be asking the Conservatives, Labour and the LDs to have joint candidates where a seat was in danger of falling to the SNP?"
If needs be in targeted seats yes.
In target constituencies the SNP will be coming with its one issue agenda and for the common good it is worth considered a united response.
It can occur that the Union, the bigger unifying idea comes before the party political. Some may wish this to be used if the SNP makes further advances, I would err on the side of early intervention, sap their momentum now.
The SNP reached comparable heights in 1974 until the devolution referendum sucked out their momentum. A similar intervention is needed again.
If the use of the tactic succeeds there hopefully wouldn't be the need to repeat it.
Alternatively in the absence of a formal pact, a tactical voting campaign could be used. The practice is far from unknown in Westminster elections, usually with Lab or Lib Dems voting tactically against Tories.
The Lib Dems also had a partially successful scalping strategy against the Tory shadow cabinet at the last election. It forced a number of names who should have been touring round the country to spend more time in their own constituencies. It wasn't a success in terms of getting seats but as a diversionary tactic. A similar approach in Scotland against the SNP could have similar value. Salmond having to run about seats already held instead of target seats, less activists to move about etc.
All of these are acceptable legal electoral practices that recognise one of the flaws of FPTP, you can get elected on a pretty low share of the vote.
It is worth noting that in half of the SNP's Westminster seats they got elected with less than 37% of the vote, one had barely over 30% (Dundee East, Moray and Ochil and Perthshire South).
A Lib-Lab deal would even possibly suffice in a number of constituencies although the Tories are in second place in some SNP constituencies so they are potential beneficiaries too.
It is also worth noting that the alternative idea (and IMO dodgy one) to sap momentum from the SNP is a referendum promising more powers to the Scottish parliament creating further imbalances in our constitutional arrangements. Would a pact in targeted seats not be preferable to that?
"I'm not sure I know what you mean by "s and b', South Belfast?"
Sorry S and B was a reference to sectarian and bigot, the standard charge when pact is mentioned.
Oneil
>>I did also say we were moving into the area of hypothesis and heresy! I'll get back to you on that healthy number (bearing in mind that returning 2 MPs would be a 100% improvement on what they've already got)<<
Backtracking and excuse making pal tch tch. And as for slagging Salmond, have a wee read of your original piece, pot and kettle come to mind. I know I'm a terrible man for reminding you of your tendency for hypocrisy here and in the other place ;¬)
I'll be waiting with baited breath for those healthy Scottish Tory numbers.
Tactical voting worked without the necessity of a formal pact in Glenrothes- best of both worlds in my opinion, the electorate when given the democratic choice make the choice of the best way to defeat nationalism. But IMO it's the electorate who must make that decision not the parties.
I'd be interested to see what any Scottish readers make of that.
I had a look at the last Scottish General Election results a few months back. I came to the conclusion that the most that Cameron could hope for was four seats - and probably less.
Of course that was before Gordon "is a moron" Brown started seriously shafting the economy in a mad gamble that could render Labour unelectable for at least a generation.
I'll be waiting with baited breath for those healthy Scottish Tory numbers.
OK, at the minute there are 4 Tory Mps outside England. Healthy in the wider UK context would be raising thta to double figures; 10 Conservatives returned in N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales is realistic.
Ah I see that your healthy Tory numbers in Scotland has now enlarged itself. Scotland ma man, Scotland.
If the Scottish Tories were to ditch London then in my view we would see those healthy numbers that so excite you. At the moment the seats may well increase in number albeit minutely
"Tactical voting worked without the necessity of a formal pact in Glenrothes- best of both worlds in my opinion, the electorate when given the democratic choice make the choice of the best way to defeat nationalism."
A by-election is a different beast to a general election
h I see that your healthy Tory numbers in Scotland has now enlarged itself. Scotland ma man, Scotland.
I'm a Unionist, I deal in UK terms;)
A by-election is a different beast to a general election
It poses the same threat.
Post a Comment