MORI Poll in Scotland - UPDATED
The Scotsman carries a new Ipsos-MORI poll on voting intentions in Scotland (the report mentions changes from an earlier Ipsos-MORI poll three months ago, though I was not previously aware of this).
The topline figures for voting intention in the Scottish Parliament constituency elections, with changes from the last elections in 2003, are CON 15%(-1.6%), LAB 28%(-6.6%), LDEM 19%(+3.7%), SNP 30%(+6.2%). The figures for the regional vote are CON 16%(+0.5%), LAB 26%(-3.3%), LDEM 19%(+7.2%), SNP 28%(+7.1%), GRN 6%(-0.7%), SSP 1%(-5.7%). The Scotsman suggests this would translate into about 40 seats for both Labour and the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.
Voting intentions in Westminster are briefly mentioned in the text, but there are no proper figures. I’ll add these once they appear on MORI’s website.
UPDATE - the full figures are now up on MORI’s website here. Note that unlike most other political polls this is a genuine random sample - phone polls are really random, since some people don’t have phones and some degree of quota sampling is sometimes used in selecting which person in a household to interview. This poll was conducted by drawing addresses randomly from across Scotland and then visiting that house repeatedly to try and arrange an interview. This should be very solid data. On the downside, it does still use MORI’s overly harsh filter by only those certain to vote…normally this is cancelled out by the tendency for non-politically weighted samples to be biased towards Labour and MORI end up in line with other pollsters. A sample collected using this method though should be highly representative to start with, so the harsh turnout filter may serve to under-represent the Labour vote.
By my reckoning, using Uniform National Swing, these poll figures translate into Labour winning 40 seats (10 fewer than in 2003), the SNP winning 37 (10 more), the Liberal Democrats on 25 (up 8), the Tories 18 (no change), the Greens on 5 (down 2), the SSP on 1 seat (losing 5) and the Others on 3 (down 1).
It just goes to show that although the AMS system for Holyrood is more proportional than Westminster, it still leads to anomalies where the largest party in terms of votes isn’t the largest in terms of seats.
It’s also interesting that those figures, if they were borne out next May, would allow the current Labour/LibDem Executive to continue, albeit with a majority of one, if both parties wished. The SNP could form a Coalition with the LibDems but they’d need backing from the Greens.
Will,
The problem is that AMS has a built in bias to the Parties that do well in the Constituencies. As of the 129 seats 73 are FPTP, Labour and the LibDems, the two parties with the most FPTP seats get a slight dege. This isn’t surprising as it was Labour and the LibDems who drew up the system , which included splitting Orkney and Shetland the countrys smallest seat apart from Western Isles in to two small safe LibDem seats seats.
Where it gets intersting is in the various parts of Scotland. A average 5% swing acrossboth votes for the LibDems, won’t do them any good in The Highlands or the Borders two of their strongholds, as they already hold too many FPTP seats to gain on the list. In the HIghlands where their are eight FPTP and seven list the LibDems already hold, six FPTP or 40% of the total, so they would need to poll almost 50% of all the votes to get one list seat, although Inverness East might be vulnerable as Fergus Ewing has a narrow majority.
If they won that, they would need closer to 60% to bet a list seat which ironically means that one of the main beneficiaries of a swing to the LibDems in the Highlands might actually be the SNP picking up a list seat from Labour.
As it happens that might not change much, because as Fergus Ewing has topped the SNP Highland list he would simply come back as a List MSP if he lost his FPTP seat.
Looking at the central belt the LibDems have an East west Split. In Edinburgh they are challenging labour and are close in a few seats. A labour collapse could see the LibDems do well with Labours chances on the list depending on how well the SNP does. It’s unlikely that in the east where the LibDems win that the SNP will do well enough to push them in to third, so I suspect Labour to lose seats to the LibDems but the lists to even things out a bit.
In Glasgow it is the SNP that are challenging , but the Labour majorities are bigger and here even with a swing to the SNP it might not br enough to win FPTP seats. What is more if disaffected middle income voters desert Labour for the LibDems, they might pick up one or two list seats while helping Labour to hang on to half a dozen FPTP by votes not going to the SNP. How tories in seats they can’t win (about 70 out of 73) switch to get a labour could also influence the outcome, and it might actually mean that tories voting tactically to try to get labour out, could make the result look poor for Cameron.
Uniform swings are unrealistic on a UK level, but for Scotlands AMS system, although you would think a more proportional system would make it a better guide, it’s actually still pretty difficult.
Creating a coalition after you have bloodied a potential partners nose could be quite difficult particularly if The LibDems emerge stronger bytaking out Labour MSP’s. I am also not sure you can predict 1 down for the Independents as I doubt Margo McDonald or dennis Canavan will get voted out, althoth John Swinburn might.
In addition if the SSP ( or whats left of it by May) stick to the list they may well still get three seats. In addition I think the greens could still do well on the list, so down one is just as likely.
All and all it is shaping up to be a lot more exciting that people though only a year ago.
Peter.
Peter,
I agree with you on Uniform National Swing - it’s difficult at the best of times and the AMS system doesn’t make it any easier. I tried applying the Baxter method and got broadly similar results, with the exception of the SSP shedding enough votes to lose all of their seats (even in their present state, that’s only probable if they cease to exist, and even then I wouldn’t bet against Tommy Sheridan standing and winning as an Independent), and Margo MacDonald finding herself looking for a new job (like you, I think she’ll still be an MSP come May 2007). So despite the problems, UNS is as good a guide as any to the outcome of the election. Even if it does predict that Alex Salmond will not make it back to Holyrood.
Interestingly enough, however, the UNS model does suggest that the 6-7% rise in the LibDem vote predicted by the poll would be enough to gain a List seat in the South of Scotland, despite their strength in the Borders. Further, the fact that the poll forecasts a strong rise in SNP support along with the increase in LibDem support would be enough to return Fergus Ewing as a Constituency MSP. While the LibDems will be buoyed by taking Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey last year, it’s worth remembering that the SNP typically polls more votes at Holyrood than at Westminster.
I agree with you on the the East-West split: I see the LibDems taking Edinburgh Central, ruling them out of a List seat in the Lothians, but don’t be surprised if the SNP take at least one (and quite possibly both) of the West Lothian Constituencies. In the West, the Baxter model would give the LibDems a chance of taking Greenock & Inverclyde (I’m not convinced of that, either), but I don’t see any other Constituencies going LibDem. The SNP, on the other hand, have a shout at winning Govan but little else in Glasgow (so we agree there), but could make significant gains in the West.
The Tory vote is an interesting one: firstly, West Renfrewshire might come into play for them (if it doesn’t then Annabel Goldie will be humiliated), as could Stirling. I see them taking Dumfries for sure, though I see them losing Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I also think that they missed their shot at winning back Perth. In terms of Tories voting Labour to keep out the SNP, I doubt it: Tory supporters have reacted frostily to leadership hints that they might prop up Labour, and the general trend in By-Elections is to give Labour a kicking, rather than prop them up.
Again, I’m with you on the Independents: UNS has Canavan, MacDonald and Jean Turner (if she stands again) keeping their seats, and the casualty in the ‘Other’ column is indeed John Swinburne.
In terms of the SSP, I think the current infighting and financial difficulties make things difficult for them. I think they’ll hold onto one Glasgow seat, and (this isn’t supported by UNS) Colin Fox may stay in on account of his increased profile (if you can say that his profile has increased). I think the main damage to Green seats comes from an increase in the SNP and/or LibDem vote.
Brian Taylor wrote that “Friday’s the story”, and the post-election negotiations will be as intriguing as the result. I generally say that a minority government is only viable if it has 44 seats (43 if the Presiding Officer comes from another party). The reason for this is a clause in the Scotland Act, which allows fresh elections to be called early if two thirds of MSPs vote for them. A minority government with fewer seats, therefore, doesn’t have control of that process. So with neither Labour nor the SNP (if this poll and my figures are accurate) in a position to secure the blocking minority needed to prevent an early election that they might not want, they will need the support of at least one other party if they want to govern.
I tried to be careful with my words in my earlier comment, hinting that the LibDems could prop up Labour if they wanted to. I’m not convinced that they do, however, and I don’t think that Labour are too keen on a third Coalition term either. However, the LibDems have ruled out any support for nuclear power stations (Labour want them, if Elaine Murray’s comments are accurate), and also a referendum on independence (a key part of any SNP-led administration, according to their leadership). Nicol Stephen must be gambling that one or the other party will back down on their position, or he’ll be forced into going back on one of his statements.
Whatever happens, it’s going to provide us all with a lot to talk about (though I suspect that people in our respective locals will make an excuse an leave whne they see us walk through the door!).
Will
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5142372.stm
for an interesting poll about Scotland, devolution and honesty in Westminster / Holyrood. Intersting the hunger for more powers for Holyrood but not independence (independence in all but name?).
Will,
I pretty much agree with most of what you are saying.
One issue that you didn’t touch on is how Tories will vote in an SNP v LibDem fight, like Inverness West.
It’s clear from the lack of a Cameron effect in Dumfermline, that they backed the party that they thought could beat Labour. Although Dumfermline was a great result for the LibDems, If about week two the SNP had gained the initiative then the same hurt labour momentum that brought thenm victory could have seen an ( all be it narrower) SNP win.
Looking at both Dundee and Aberdeen over the years it’s clear that local tory perceptions of who can keep Labour out have been factors for a long time.
As to the coalition, the manouvering is interesting. Jacks attempts to avoid the nuclear issue aren’t convincing anybody, and I think with the SNP publishing it’s energy review in a week or so, the execuitive lie of not till waste is sorted will be under real pressure.
Nicol Steven and Jack McConnel might want to hold on to it in the hope they can fudge the issue, but the Unions on the Labour side want a “Yes” and the rank and file of the LibDems want a “No”.
With the LibDems now talking about a cut to 20% on income tax in Scotland, in line with the new national policy, (which given recent execuitive underspends is probably affordable) and still for local income tax then they are a lot closer to the SNP than to Labour.
The introduction of PR across Scotland, will also mean a huge change in the polictical make up of Scotlands councils and particularly for the Labour party. If Labour looses power nationally and locally at the same time, we could see a real blood bath by autumn 2007.
There is also the Blair factor and whether he announced a date for hand over before the Scottish elections, That might help Labour to avoid a “get him out” vote.
And as ever there are “Events Dear Boy”, unless something happens May next year could be the first Holyrood election not fought as we go to war.
As to the Independence referendum it is more a problem for Alex Salmond than Nicol Steven. Alex can’t turn round and say no to his party as it would be civil war, so he can’t back down.
Nicol on the other hand has the exit of agreeing to allow the referendum while being free to campaign for a “No” vote.
Polls show that three out of four scots support a referendium in principle ( and one poll showed almost four out of five LibDems in Scotland did), so allowing it to take place, can be portrayed as both the “Liberal” and “Democratic” thing to do, while campaigning for a “No” is in line with the party’s views.
While keeping their options open, I think if anyone will find a way out it is the LibDem. After all they campaigned on “No Tuition Fees”, and then within a week of the election had gone up the ladder as in animal farm and squeezed ” Up Front” , between “No” and “Tuition”.
Whats more as far as I am aware, like Jim Wallace before him, Nicol Steven, spoke and voted against “Free Care” right until the last day in the Scottish Parliament, when the final vote was cancelled and the bill conceeded.
From then on he has claimed it as a “great victory” for the LibDems. A bit like Tony Blair claiming that he is proud to lead a Labours that defeated 90 days detention without trail.
The key deciding issue for me on the referendum question, is do the LibDems think the SNP can win it, if they do then it will be a deal breaker, if the don’t then allowing it could be one of the best moves they ever made.
As an SNP supporter I also should add that if the SNP did win an Independence vote I think the prospects for both the LibDems as a party and their policies and ideas would fair a lot better in an independent Scotland that is increasingly attracted to the Scandinavian model, that they will for decades in the UK.
Indeed I know of a lot of SNP supporters and members who see the Libdems as their post Independence home.
Peter.
Peter,
I agree with a lot of the points you raise, particularly about Coalition prospects. As to where the Tory vote goes in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber, I’d wager that despite LibDem suggestions that they may cut income tax, Fergus Ewing would be a more logical choice for Tory voters (though I’m working on the person rather than the party), coming as he does from the centre-right tradition of Nationalism.
Also, reports that the Greens dismiss him as a ‘petrolhead’ probably didn’t do his standing any harm either: in most parts of the country, the Greens, LibDems and the bulk of the SNP would appear to be fighting for the same regional votes. Ewing’s approach, and his distance from the Greens (and, by extension, the LibDems) would make him appear as a viable destination for Tory tactical voters, who might feasibly vote to keep a LibDem out (It’s a mark of the Tory decline in Scotland that we’re considering who Tory supporters will vote against, rather than their own party’s prospects).
The one caveat to that prediction is the LibDem penchant for ‘localism’, so I’d wager that their candidate there will be a Unionist version of Fergus Ewing. I still don’t see it working though.
Will,
The danger for Fergus is that with a good LibDem campaign ( and they can pretty much count on the support of the Inverness Courier) they will convince people it is a two horse race, and if that works, it’s the Labour vote that will cost the SNP the seat.
In the same way when people became convinced that it was a contest between Labout and the LibDems for the westminster seat, a lot of SNP voters switch to LibDem to get rid of Dave Stewart.
Peter.
To be honest I think it’s a bit dangerous to read much into this poll. It was carried out over a period of three months and involved face to face interviews.
As to the results themselves the SNP were polling in the high twenties and low thirties in the lead up to 2003 and fell away sharply on polling day (albeit the polls were by system 3 rather than Mori). The Labour figures are however considerably worse than they were polling previously and may put a number of seats at risk.
As a Tory who lives in the South of Scotland I would think that holding Galloway & Upper Nithsdale is less of an ask than winning in Dumfries. The SNP have been consistently falling back in the seat at ecery election since 1997. I’m not sure if even a nationwide rise in support would stop this trend.
Max,
You could be right, but there is the momentum issue, If people think the SNP “Can win” then not just SNP supporters who have stopped voting, but LibDem and Labour voters who don’t want a Tory may well shift.
If the Tories have a sitting MSP who is well liked then holding it is a good bet, but the perception of it as a winnable seat can make a lot of difference.
It’s interesting to see the Local Labour MSP come out strongly in favour of Chapelcross 2, which I think is more to do with local jobs that an real support for Nuclear power.
Peter.
Peter,
Thats a fair point. Allthough I wonder if the differing boundaries for Holyrood & Westminster will cause some confusion. I think your also right about Elaine Murray - it’s a bit like Lord Thurso in Caithness.
The other interesting fight down hear will be in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale where all four parties are within a few percentage of each other. All four parties have reselected the same candidate as last time round.
Max,
Tweeddale could well be interesting particularly at council level as i believe their is still a lot of fall out over the education issue.
Come to think of it isn’t the current education PPP and school closures plan an issue in Dumfries as well.
Peter.
Anthony,
Have the figures for Westminster appeared yet.
Peter.