All parties take a hit with Harris
March 9th, 2010| Harris poll for The Metro | Mar 9 | Feb 22 |
|---|---|---|
| CONSERVATIVES | 37% | 39% |
| LABOUR | 29% | 30% |
| LIB DEMS | 18% | 22% |
| LAB to CON swing from 2005 | 5.5% | 6% |
And “others” soar in another online poll
As the polling deluge continues there’s another survey out this evening from Harris Interactive for the Metro. The figures are above with the big move, surely, being a huge increase in the numbers saying that they will vote for one of the other parties - mostly BNP/UKIP/GRN.
One detail from the poll is that just two out of every three people who supported Labour last time now say they will do so at the coming general election. This puts them sharply at odds with the YouGov view of the world where Labour has not lost all that much support.
The Metro report makes great play of comments by the boss of Harris, Robert Salvoni, on what this means in terms of seats using, of course, the UNS as if it had some magical power.
This is total bollocks of course and is based on a blind belief in the uniform swing. Mr. Salvoni should stick to polling.
With a bit of luck we’ll have the latest PB/Angus Reid poll this week.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Harris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Proper poll!!!!!!!!!!
Lab = 1983!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arrgh too many polls
“This is total bollocks of course” - Language, please!
And yes Number 3, there are too many polls
FPT- I wouldn’t allow myself to become too excited over the Harris poll, though. Metro is about the most worthless excuse for a newspaper on the planet. Anyone who would do business with them is duly tainted.
From Mike’s article: “The Metro report makes great play of comments by the boss of Harris, Robert Salvoni, on what this means in terms of seats using, of course, the UNS as if it had some magical power.
This is total bollocks of course and is based on a blind belief in the uniform swing. Mr. Salvoni should stick to polling.”
As I was saying…
For info
37+29+18+5+4+3+3+1=100
(C+L+LD+UKIP+BNP+SNP+GRN+PC)
as reported here
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/816707-minority-parties-win-big-after-donor-feud
The earlier PoliticsHome 12% figure for “Others” was wrong.
“With a bit of luck we’ll have the latest PB/Angus Reid poll this week.”
Back to a Tory majority of 120 then. Thanks heavens for that!
We want an ICM poll!!!!
Anthony reakons Harris’s share for Others must be 16%;
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
He also points out that Harris, Angus and Opinium all have Others at 16-17%, way above the traditional pollsters. So what are these new kids on the block picking up that the established pollsters aren’t?
If these new pollsters are correct and these shares for the Others are sustained to polling day then I think two things;
1. It will make polling for the election pretty redundant as we simply have no way of knowing how such high shares for Others would play out from seat to seat and how that would impact on the main parties.
2. At such a high level we would surely be looking at our first BNP/UKIP/Green MP’s which would take this election into the history books.
5 Have we sorted out the shortfall of 4% or have others gone from 9% last month to 16% this month?
Sean Fear is right. If the Tories lose this election to a Labour Minority Government - and as things stand I believe this is the most likely result - then they should just disband.
There is no point in them. Cameron should f*ck off back to PR, pasty faced Osborne can slink back to the City.
No More Toffs. They Are Losers. Let the party dissolve and reform as something more credible.
HOW CAN THE TORIES NOT REALISE THAT HAVING A POSH TOFF TEENAGE TRUSTAFARIAN CHANCELLOR IN THE MIDDLE OF A VIOLENT RECESSION IS JUST DISASTROUS POLITICS?
Idiots.
Are the Sun getting pissed off with their pollster? There doesn’t seem to be much effort being put into it and Kellners comments are laughable:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2885994/Suns-daily-poll-March-10.html
10 rogerh
See my post at 6. It seems the error was down to PoliticsHome, not Metro or Harris.
All those delicate new London based readers may be offended by language like this.
6: the failure to lance the UKIP boil is another Cameron failing coming back to haunt the Tories. You’d have to think the Tories would be >40% if the UKIP share was around the 1% mark, where it should be. No doubt UKIP will stop the Tories winning a number of seats again in May.
11. Most likely they will stay together (probably under a new leader - God knows who?) hunker down as Labour is buffeted by economic disaster after disaster.
Budget confirmed for 24 March - 6 May election almost certainly on, according to the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/10/budget-date-24-march
11 SeanT, what’s your problem? You can simply slip off back to Thailand and continue your charmed life as a Tax Sexile, and author of penny dreadfuls. Why get so worked up?
fpt 214.Reality check on polling for mad gabble and buddies:
Given the Golden rule that states that the worst poll for labour is the most accurate, weirdly enough ICM is the most accurate and that means 9% lead.
Given the second golden rule that states that labour will be overstated even in the worst poll for them 9% becomes 11%.
Given the third golden rule that the tories are understated a bit even in the best poll for them, lead = 12%
So Yougov says 4 in reality 12.
by voreas March 9th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
15 Bob Sykes
If the “European Monetary Fund” thing becomes serious, and not just a talking point, Cameron will be forced, to have any credibility whatsoever, to offer a referendum on the new treaty.
This could paradoxically bring some UKIP back into the Tory fold. A lot depends on timing though - which in turn, depends on whether Greece can sell its debt.
11: Sean, if the non YouGov polls are correct the Tories are doing as well as Thatcher in 1979. And that’s after two months of bad press.
FPT
Cameron deserves credit for strengthening the tories’ ties with their political allies in NI.
I think most people will be impressed to see him at the centre of events with an ex-president calling on him for assistance. He made the right call even if he couldn’t persuade the UUP.
17. If this is true then this is the biggest news of the day, bigger than any polls. A budget will be the big event between now and the election campaign if it actually happens. All bets are off until after that.
14 what you mean: CU…. [oops sorry not allowed to post that now!]
We want Tim Janman!!!!!!!!
Get rid of Camo and Osbo now - they are shyte - where’s terry dicks?!
16 - GIN, are you coming round to the ‘Tories for Gordon’ cause too?
Jump on in, the water’s lovely…
Presently I view Harris similarly to BPIX as we are not getting the supporting data tables.
I await with baited breath for my view to change.
15. Cameron would have this election sewn up if he hadn’t been a lying c*nt on Europe: he’d have all the UKIP votes in his pocket.
He deserves to lose. I fear that he will.
Wow. Whose the hedge-fund guy on Newsnight laying into European socialists? Can’t he run for British PM!
According to Harris:
UKIP, BNP, Greens = 12% = about 3 million votes.
Sean T - a hypothetical question: if the Tories get their sh*t together and attack Labour to good effect in the next week, will you admit that your attacks on DC and GO have been a little hysterical?
I thought I had escaped the Labour lot from the other site but it appears the red rag lot are on here as well, they always spoil good conversation, go back to the other site you lot
FPT David Roe
I dont think you get it there David, we arent allowed to have a political system in NI where parties have a right to an independent opinion.
No, rather the Ulster Unionists, who lest we forget are their own party, must do what what they are told by everyone else outside of the country. They should ignore everyone including the likely soundings they took from their own base and potential base.
That anyone had the gall to point out that Stormont is a shambles is clearly a disgrace and they should of course stay silent lest they destroy the peace process by voting at the forum to which they were elected.
Maybe people in England are dictated to like that and simply accept it meekly. That kind of approach is guaranteed the same answer every time from this of the water.
Two fingers.
25. Not at all. Just saying the Tories aren’t going to disband or split anytime soon, IMO. I remember everyone saying Labour needed to disband or split in 1992 and looked what happened in 97.
A budget means more Osborne on TV.
That’ll help.
I believe Seant’s venom shows, not only how annoyed he is, but also how MUCH he wants the Tories to do well and get rid of Gordon.
My guess is that WHEN they raise their game [and get equal coverage] he will pull them to his bosom with relief and joy and rush off to the polls to oust Brown with a song on his lips and a tear in his eye, like millions of others.
Budget date to be announced tomorrow. March 24th almost certain. May 6th election nailed on thereafter
Mike’s getting a bit strident these days. The UNS isn’t all bad. Lets not forget that it was spot on in 2005 which incidently was a long time before he was on the map.
re 206 FPT ooh Ben M has your shift started now. What about the debate on crime figures then. Any comment?
What we’re seeing with the Lib Dems is a bit of a slump from their 2005 poll. However, I don’t see why this is actually pointing towards such big losses. Because what nobody seems to take into account is the fact that their English vote is actually pretty strong and similar to their 2005 vote and its actually their Scottish and Welsh vote that has collapsed. So, conveivably, due to the strength of their existing Scottish seats, its possible that with 22% in England, 12% (-11%) in Scotland and 12% (-6%) they could lose just one or two seats! (going by this sort of poll).
However, I think the sheer strength of the Tories in England alone will be the biggest problem for the Lib Dem, especially since their south west vote is set to be squeezed to buggery.
34 tim, a budget means get to see more of Darling, the next Labour leader. Oh, wait it’s not him, it’s Alan Johnson, err no, one of the Millibands err…. What will your next prediction be?
35. Sally, why do you think Cameron and co aren’t really saying anything about…. well….. anything at the moment? Is it strategic? And if so, what is the reasoning?
16 The party has been preparing for two elections if necessary all long. Labour will not survive as the largest party. It will be hell for them. They will be crucified.
If you think we will shut up shop and lick our wounds whilst that happens, you’re wrong.
35- Exactly. The Tories need some tough love right about now, and Sean can serve it up by the plateful.
34. I thought it was traditional for the Leader of the Opposition to give the reply to the Budget himself, rather than the Shadow Chancellor?
re 37 Mike’s getting a bit strident these days. The UNS isn’t all bad. Lets not forget that it was spot on in 2005 which incidently [sic] was a long time before he was on the map.
SLIMES bit of a Johny-come-lately are you? And one who can’t be bothered to read the archives. Or was the site I was posting on before the 2005 election a figment of my imagination?
AVE IT BUDGET SPECIAL!!!!! SAVE THE NATION!!!!
———————————————–
NI increases… cancelled!
Abolition of personal allowances… cancelled!
Restriction of pension tax relief… cancelled!
50% tax rate… cancelled!
VAT…25%!
All handouts…cancelled!
All tax credits…cancelled and recipients made to pay them back!
Interest on savings…tax free especially for higher rate tax payers!!!!
O/T
SeanT - I don;t think osborne ever really worked in the City, he had a pretendy job for a bit. he never managed anyone or ran a deal.
re the Budget - what is the point of a budget just 2 weeks before calling an election and disolving parliament. It is just a manifesto - I hope the media pick up on how utterly cynical and pointless this exercise will be.
I doubt there will even be time to get the finance bill through parliament.
38. Chris A
“This information, obtained by the Conservatives but which they have yet to publish in full, suggests offences against the person rose from 618,417 in 1998 to 887,942 last year.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8557894.stm
I wonder why?….
22 - OK what have you done with the real Gabble?!
31 - Now that I am not a London-based editor looking at NI from an unbiased view, I am aware that I am liable to look at everything from a UUP standpoint (albeit they STILL haven’t posted my membership pack) but I do find pontification from Tim and Roger to be irritating.
I personally don’t agree with the decision to make a stand today, Peter Robinson’s statement to Stormont this afternoon, setting out that the provisions for policing devolution that the UUP set out years ago had been met, was good.
But for the Guardian class to suggest that Reg should have bowed to that well-known peacenik George Bush beggars belief.
FPT 216 Roger
I am not saying that Yokel’s post is unbiased. Yokel has a clear and consistent unionist perspective. Yet for all the bias, Yokel’s argument is intelligent, well-reasoned and deeply rooted in local political knowledge.
Dismissing Cameron’s link with the UUP as a “a rather seedy attempt to gain extra votes” is shallow, partisan analysis.
Yokel does not predict that the Con-UUP electoral pact will succeed, but he does explain its multiple and complex objectives and sound political motivation.
More documentary, less propaganda, Roger!
33 first brown and more brownies and that will definately help. Then Darling who will either.
a) do gordons cuts vs investment, whereupon everyone will snigger.
b) admit cuts have to start but not until nexxt year, whereby all business leaders will say what an idiot.
c) admit cuts actually have to happen starting now, at which point osborne will take a bow.
in whatever case there will be sweeteners that unravel in about 2 hours and by the next morning the papers will destroy it.
Any last vestiges of good for labour about the budget will then be destroyed by the realisation that who cares what darling says as if Labour get back ed balls is chancellor anyway.
And that will most certainly help.
49 - But I repeat that is a personal view, the party leadership has every right to make its decision.
42. Hell for them, but hell for the country itself.
I’ve said all along there are worse things that could happen for the Conservative Party iself than not win this election (by that I mean form the next government) Of course for Cameron it’s be a bit of a disaster and for the country it’s be hell, but for the Tories there is an upside to Brown being the one that has to deal with his own scorched earth….
44 - It is in the Commons, but Osborne will do the TV broadcast in the evening and will lead for the Opposition on the first day of the subsequent Budget debates.
GIN, I have no very special inside knowledge but I have a theory which I am not going to expound on here.
It’s very risky, but the problem on this site which is betting on the outcome of one election is that we can’t see beyond that.
I think the certain parts of the leadership have always seen beyond polling day and are far cooler than the rest of us.
1. YouGov
2. Angus/Reid
3. Populus
4. Ipsos/MORI
5. ICM
6. Opinium
7. TNS BMRB
8. BPIX
9. ComRes
10. Harris
Did I miss any out?
11:SeanT. Cameron knows people are fedup with all Mps. So why would he fight the election before he knows for sure when the election is. People now have a very short attention span. He is just waiting for the election to be called.
Hmm SeanT may have a point. Note Tim’s recent attacks have largely been concentrated on non-Toffs (but good communicators) eg Hague, Fox and Grayling - he obviously would prefer them out of the media spotlight. Doubly useful as they are also euro-sceptics and a higher profile for these guys might attract back those who have defected to UKIP.
Orange causes blue malfunction
30. 35. Yes. And Yes. But I am fast reaching the conclusion that THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS FOR THE TORIES. There isn’t a secret weapon, they aren’t withholding their best ammunition, they aren’t playing rope-a-dope, there is no masterly inactivity which will suddenly transform into bruising brilliance.
They are just sh!t. This is it. This is their election campaign. Sit back and enjoy. They are the England rugby team, as I have said. You expect them to be good because of previous reputation. But they are not good.
They are a party of dolts led by grinning, flailing, upper class buffoons. Cameron is a fraud. Osborne is bright but disastrous. Pickles looks like a a f*cking space hopper. Hague is funny but doesn’t care any more. Grieve has been recently exhumed. Davis is banished. Grayling induces coma. The Health guy is so anonymous I forget his name.
Gove is OK.
55. Oh, cryptic.
60 i like rosindell he should be leader!
re 37 To use the word of the night your post is bollocks. The UNS was NOT spot on in 2005.
This excellent analysis by Andy Cooke was published on the site just two days ago.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/07/andy-cooke-on-the-uns-part-2/
60 SeanT, you should cut down on your alcohol intake.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Newspaper-Front-Pages-Wednesday-March-10-2010/Media-Gallery/201003215570572?lpos=UK_News_Left_Promo_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15570572_Newspaper_Front_Pages_Wednesday_March_10_2010
62 - way back when there was a character called British and Proud who worshipped the ground Mr Rosindell walked on.
60 - How about persuading your daughter to take your place here? We need a Thomas with maturity and insight.
For online polls, it’s worth looking closely at how they handle “others”. A fairly typical procedure is this:
Screen A:
Would you vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem, or another party?
[voter: they're all rubbish. I'll try someone else.]
Screen B:
…and would that be BNP, Green, Nationlaist, UKIP or someone else?
[voter: duh. Where's the back button? Oh, I can't go back.]
- which I suggest produces a different result (maybe more, maybe less) from just listing all the parties together. Does anyone know who does what?
I have a feeling, but of course being a feeling it is not necessarily intellectually defensible, that the online pollsters have got the ‘others’ wrong because they under poll some of the groups who are more likely to err towards more traditional voting patterns - and that these voters are less likely to vote.
I also think that when reality hits, and people are forced in their own constituency to choose one of the candidates who has a realistic chance of winning there, they will be squeezed hard. If I am right about this, the ‘others’ will poll disproportionately well in safe seats where campaigning may be less intense.
60- Yes, it is increasingly unnerving to hear a wide array of explanations bandied about atempting to reassure us that, any day now, we’ll start to see the Tories put on a blinding display of political brilliance that will smite Gordon the Terrible. Like Hitler who in the latter days of World War II was ever more preoccupied with various super weapons that were going to turn the tide and win the war, we are to believe that some political super weapon is being kept in reserve for the decisive moment, concealed from view all this time perhaps to make the final victory that much more spectacular.
GIN at 53: “for the Tories there is an upside to Brown being the one that has to deal with his own scorched earth”
What delicious karma that would be.
Hell, the Tories might even do a decent bit of opposing too in those circumstances.
And the further beauty of it is that having won the election (or at least, clung on), Brown would feel utterly vindicated in staying on for a full term with a view to matching Tony’s 10 years.
Taking all of the above into account, a 97 style landslide for the Tories whenever the next GE comes surely?
22. The UUP were grandstanding on this, and few will have been impressed at what was tantamount to a completely cynical hissy fit.
However, at the end of the day it means little; the irony is that the opprobium that has been heaped on Cameron has at its root little of great import, other than Cameron’s naivety. Were he not on the verge of becoming Prime Minister this would not be newsworthy, but that he could not have foreseen the dangers that could arise out of such dalliances is the problem (the Patterson-convened talks being another point in case).
SeanT - Hammond,Gove,Warsi and Shapps are the best the Tories have.
Why Hammond isn’t Shadow Chanellor leaving Osborne to do some strateging, is beyond me.
Although I agree that Hague is funny, most people I know spent 1997-2001 laughing at him, and now he’s back.
65. I can’t believe, weeks before an election, that Labour is dredging up all the Gurkha’s stuff again and going after lovely, classy Joanna Lumley. Waht on earth are they thinking?
The tories have had little else to do over the last four years except craft an effective GE campaign.
The pre-campaign has not been good but once they have Labour’s final budget (for this term), I’m sure they’ll come out fighting harder than ever.
69 - I guess that means the converse holds true, too. Do you think we’re in for a big increase in turnout?
63 - maybe SLIMES is confusing UNS with the exit poll which was spot on of course.
68 Let me guess the removal of the back button is taking 10% away from labour.
49. “But for the Guardian class to suggest that Reg should have bowed to that well-known peacenik George Bush beggars belief.”
The other way of looking at it is that things aren’t looking great for Reg Empey when he’s the one chanting “Ulster Says No” while those well-known moderates and bridge-builders George W Bush and the Reverend Ian Paisley look on, sadly shaking their heads at such infantile behaviour.
Sky News paper panel looks balanced. Maguire and Roger Alton. If they have the same effect on Sky’s viewing figures they have on their own readerships, I better check how my shares in News Corp are doing
67. I have two daughters. Neither surnamed Thomas. Other than that, good point.
71: Who are you going to vote for?
70 - a narrow win for either Brown or Cameron is great news from a Lib Dem party political standpoint. I’m of the view that a HP would be bad news if it forced either a choice or an early election. Far better to watch one of the other parties implode dealing with the mess.
9% for BNP/UKIP? Thank god they aren’t going to have to be accommodated within a mainstream party, keep them on the fringe where they deserve to be.
70. If the Tories have a cunning plan, it had better be “as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University but has moved on, and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning”.
72, Its called politics and the UUP can play it just like anyone else. Its also possible that the UUP actually asked what their constituency thought.
Why the UUP no vote was such a horrific thought is a mystery bearing in mind the DUP had the votes to take the unionist side through anyway.
We shouldn’t be too surprised at a high figures for “others”. Just 9 months ago, the three major Parties managed just about 57% between them.
Hardly surprising therefore that around half of those who voted for others last June will vote the same way in this election.
The negative spats and smearing that has dominated the political news over the past few months will only serve to reinforce the “they’re all as bad as each other” meme and turn voters away from the major Parties.
60: To be circa 7/8 points ahead used, before this period of large majorities, to be a good place to be, more so if you have had a bad few months.
Your suggestions of what the Tories should be arguing would be pulled apart, and misrepresented by Labour and its friends in the media, then partially adopted. The Tories need to perform when it counts not when its opponents have time to dissemble.
That said they have been pants recently.
79 Maybe the UUP don’t like the way in which Policing & Justice is to be implemented. What’s infantile about that? Why is the NI administration not allowed to have an Opposition?
79 - Ignoring your ‘infantile’ jibe, this is the reason why I disagree with Reg Empey’s stance, as I’ve said.
re 72 oh of course chrisco politicians must only act in their own best interest, and how it’ll play out in the media. That’s what 13 years of new Labour has taught you. Ever thought that Cameron’s alliance with the UUP is because he happens to think that it’s in the best interest of NI and GB as well.
84 ukpaul, the BNP are Labour’s bastard child. I’m sure they’d be welcomed back into the fold if it suited Brown’s means.
It’s great to see SeanT and tim in complete agreement on the current state of the Conservative campaign.
“The farmer and the cowman should be friends.
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
But that’s no reason why they cain’t be friends. “
lol I bet this Harris poll soon disappointed the lab lot from the other site, I can just imagine there comments, this 1 is much more interesting and no spin. I have been interested in politics for a while now, so its good to read decent comments that make sence, I have switched from lab to tory ever since corus closed and Im in a swing seat.
re 74 they are thinking, Lumley has dared to say nasty things about the Supreme Leader, and such person must be smeared and ground into the dust. That the usual new Labour MO isn’t it?
71 The problem of wouldn’t it be great if brown won, is that he will change the electoral system to favour labour, he will change the upper house to favour labour, and he will change the funding of parties to favour labour.
Re 5, Stars and Stripes..
“FPT- I wouldn’t allow myself to become too excited over the Harris poll, though. Metro is about the most worthless excuse for a newspaper on the planet. Anyone who would do business with them is duly tainted.”
Scratches head.. have you read the Daily Mirror?
“This is total bollocks of course and is based on a blind belief in the uniform swing. Mr. Salvoni should stick to polling.”
As I was saying…”
Almost every political pundit in the media does the same thing…
94. Good for you. And welcome.
81 - Hey ho. I was hoping that there might be a bright side. Shame that you have become even more tediously repetitive than tim. And at least he doesn’t screech at us.
96 - it won’t favour Labour if he goes for AV; it’ll increase the Labour wipeout.
The BNP only have 122 candidates selected so far. If they were going to win 4% as this poll suggests they would need to poll about 21% of the vote in the seats they’re contesting.
97 - And hey, he’s back! And the big question is….do you still have a blog?
89. “Maybe the UUP don’t like the way in which Policing & Justice is to be implemented. What’s infantile about that? Why is the NI administration not allowed to have an Opposition?”
But that’s an entirely separate issue. Today had nothing to do with the principle of mandatory coalition.
The UUP’s stance was not a matter of principle, it was a fit of pique at not being take seriously enough in the negotiations - ironically almost identical to the way the DUP used to behave when the UUP were the leading party.
S&S.
The thing you need to appreciate about our electoral system is that unlike yours, our campaign doesn’t last a year.
As AnnaK says, we have a short attention span with politicians - give us endless Cameron now and we won’t be listening to him come the actual campaign.
In short, SeanT is wrong.
71: “Who are you going to vote for?”
I’m open to offers for once!
Voting Labour to help send Gordon back in has its attractions.
A spoiled ballot, with “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING DAVE?” scrawled across it, is probably the favourite…
O/T Has the Secretary of State for Business, Mandelson made any comment on the news of Chevron’s plan to sell off it’s Welsh refinery with the possible threat to 1400 jobs?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/03/09/chevron-invites-bids-for-pembroke-refinery-91466-25995437/
88. The difference between now and every other election in history is that the Tories are facing one of the most loathed governments in history.
A government responsible for two failed wars, half a million dead, the longest recession in history, the biggest deficit in the world (need I go on), a party led by a ridiculous and pompous liar, a man so hated by HIS OWN SIDE they have tried to unseat his three times.
And at the moment the Tories are struggling to be largest party in a hung parliament.
Moroever, poll after polls shows us that the people WANT change. And yet when they look at the ramshackle jalopy that is the Tory campaign they get the jitters. And who can blame them.
This is failure, by the Tories, on an Homeric scale.
95 Labour have decided to smear and smash their way to the election.
A few wrong targets and it will blow up in their faces.
96. Brown would certainly try and change the voting system in his favour, but at the end of the day when the public is in the mood for vote for change en mass the voting system can be over-come. Just look what happened in Scotland. Labour thought they had a system that would sustain in power in their heartland forever - Didn’t take long for them to be booted out did it?
Labour are also on the dying legs in local government. Another term in office could easily finish them off forever at grass roots level.
95 To be honest, what has been happening to the ex-Gurkha soldiers and their dependants who are coming over here is pretty messy. It is compounded by the fact that there has been no real Government response. A multidisciplinary approach to sorting out housing, benefits, jobs, etc would have been a good idea. Many speak no English, including some who served in the Gurkhas. There are plenty of Nepalese speakers in the areas in which they are settling, it would have been a simple matter to provide advice in their own language. But I imagine that as the Government was defeated in Parliament they have effectively to offer the correct support to suit their own ends. I can’t help think that the Gurkhas are being betrayed again - this time, by allowing them to arrive in the UK destitute and at the mercy of shysters, subsequently living in appalling conditions, just so the Government can say “I told you so”.
85- The most frequent excuse here is that the election hasn’t been declared yet, so we shouldn’t expect anything from the Tories in the way of campaigning. Well, the Tories need to wake up and realize that Labour are already campaigning with a hefty assist from their friends in the media. The Tories can’t afford to sit on their hands until the writ drops, and it is troubling if they think they can.
re 102, Jon o, “97 - And hey, he’s back! And the big question is….do you still have a blog?”
Might have, don’t like to mention it normally
but it is here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
106 - Probably nothing since Labour have almost certainly given up on holding on in Carmarthen West anyway.
107 “A government responsible for two failed wars, half a million dead, the longest recession in history, the biggest deficit in the world (need I go on), a party led by a ridiculous and pompous liar, a man so hated by HIS OWN SIDE they have tried to unseat his three times.”
I am sure that if the tories got the opportunity to put it like that in the broadcast media they would, but the reality they have a largely hostile broadcast media and if they did do a seant style rant either it would be spun so it became counter productive or it would be cut.
104- I know that is technically true and I hope you’re right. Still, I wonder… (see post 111).
112. Benedict good to see posting.
Whats going on with these polls and the election?
It is a shame you think like that if you really hate Labour. As I said above I think Cameron realises people are fedup with all mp’s and is waiting for the election to be called.
109 A weak minority conservative govt would not be good for the country.
107 We are also facing one of the most economically ill-educated generations who have been feed on the mogadon of state dependency.
The irony is that the scale of the problem is so large that most people can’t understand it and those who do are may be about to look out for themselves and can’t see beyond that.
What we need is for people to understand that with a Labour Government the cuts will come anyway and probably be greater, because the markets won’t have any faith in them without a clear demonstration of cruel intent.
“I can’t believe, weeks before an election, that Labour is dredging up all the Gurkha’s stuff again and going after lovely, classy Joanna Lumley. Waht on earth are they thinking?”
Lol, i think they’re both trying to lose.
118. “A weak minority conservative govt would not be good for the country.”
Although a strong majority Conservative government would be worse still.
“WHAT WERE YOU THINKING DAVE?”
There are plenty of quotes from HAL in 2001 that could be applied here. “Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave?”
How the hell do we know which polls to trust when two on the same night come out, one showing the Lib Dem vote share up by 25%, the other showing the Lib Dems down by 22.5%?
86. We both know Yokel that an abstention would have been a vote closer to what the UUP base thinks, but that wouldn’t have got the same headlines…
Yes as a new be to politics I have noticed labour are playing very dirty politics, desperate springs to mind, It was disgraceful labour let down so many families up here when corus closed, betraying there core voters,this region allready had the highest rate of unemployment in the UK. Well 1 thing for sure labour wont win this seat come the election.
123. The YouGoV tracker can go in the bin, IMO. Tacker polls are hopeless. Always have been, always will be. And thats true if/when they show the Tories doing well, as well, before the susual suspects start.
“One detail from the poll is that just two out of every three people who supported Labour last time now say they will do so at the coming general election. This puts them sharply at odds with the YouGov view of the world where Labour has not lost all that much support.”
Mike, have you got any numbers for this? I’d been assuming that YouGov were getting a substantial drop in their 2005 voters balanced by an increase in non-2005 voters. But I couldn’t find that kind of breakdown in the PDFs I found here:
http://www.yougov.co.uk/corporate/archives/press-archives-pol-intro.asp?submenuheader=1
103 OK I admit I haven’t been following the P&J debate very closely, as far as I am concerned NI is a small country far away and I am just relieved that British soldiers are no longer dying because of it.
But a quick websearch suggests that the UUP think that the current administration is dysfunctional, and should not be trusted with something as important as P&J.
They may, or may not, be right. But it doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable position to take. In the end there was a sufficient majority in favour of the proposal.
Do you accuse opposition parties of “infantilism” and “a fit of pique” if they vote against the SNP budget in the Scottish parish council? Consensus is very often a denial of democracy itself.
123. When you are dealing with such small numbers, there is bound to be a bit of statistical variation
That’s the third time Firefox has crashed on me.
Goodnight all.
119- As Yellow Submarine has said, the majority of people probably aren’t bruised enough, educated enough or mature enough for that discussion. It’s an electoral loser for the Tories.
114 Having said that more passion for the state the country is in would not go amiss. If Cameron showed that he was really cheesed off that our troops were dying due to lack of equipment, the NHS was killing people through targets, People and their children’s living standards are threatened due to brown’s borrowing issues, or that peoples wages are being kept lower due to Labour dogma over immigration. Then that would be great but as I said the nick robinsons of this world would spin like crazy.
Cameron is a fraud. Osborne is bright but disastrous. Pickles looks like a a f*cking space hopper. Hague is funny but doesn’t care any more. Grieve has been recently exhumed. Davis is banished. Grayling induces coma. The Health guy is so anonymous I forget his name.
Gove is OK.
One can love SeanT without agreeing with him. There are times in life when it is the journey not the destination that counts.
Sean T - another hypothetical question: if Brown’s government is so hated, why do so many people, albeit a minority, say in opinion surveys that he’s not too bad?
And another, if I may: would you support a review of constituency boundaries to remove the 5% handicap the Tories have to overcome to even get on level terms with Labour?
Tories moaning about the media need to keep in mind the the biggest help to Brown has been the Sun and its misjudged attacks.
Perhaps it’s all a conspiracy by Murdoch senior to let his son and his posh mates in the Tory Party humiliate themselves.
107 - quite right SeanT. I just find myself disgusted by the meek spineliness Tory opposition at the moment. Where were they tonight, after the disastrous trade figures announced today - Gideon or Hammond should have been touring the studios attacking them for that, but no they’re SILENT! You wouldn’t believe there is an election 8 weeks on Thursday would you!
Thought the Rawnsley Dispatches program last night was very good last night, very balanced and well put together. Cameron would do well to get really angry for a week and really put the boot into this government, but he won’t because he’s a clone led by focus group politics. Heck, we’re in a huge economic crisis, and all we get is a Blair clone II - that would have done well in comfortable times, but DC has never adjusted to the new reality, not as though he understands the dynamics of a heavilty indebted economy. It’s a bit like late 1939 / early 1940 - a completely phoney war with complete unrealism all round the political system.
107: Labour aren’t one of the most loathed governments in history, people are just tired of them and Brown is pulling them down. This isn’t 1997 territory but 1979 territory but with the added fun of a general distrust of all politicians after the expenses nonsense. The Tories also won’t get the benign to biased media that Labour did in the mid 90s.
Without the bias in the system the Tories would be heading easily for a small but workable majority. They are in a position that would have won most of the post war elections, hardly a ‘Homeric failure’.
Again I end with an admission that their performance in the last two months has been inept.
121 Only for you, Mark senior, tim, gabble and other dogma obsessed types etc but for everyone else it may stop the decline in living standards that has already started.
Anyway I know how you like to have the last word and I can’t afford to stay up all night so it is all yours.
OT, the anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak is apparently “getting more optimistic that a compromise can be reached” on healthcare.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/08/bart-stupak-has-hope/
Amazing what seeing your supporters destroyed by a sex scandal and having people come after you for not declaring in-kind donations from a shadowy religious cult can do to make you optimistic…
134 tim
Perhaps it’s all a conspiracy by Murdoch senior to let his son and his posh mates in the Tory Party humiliate themselves.
Perhaps.
Re 116, Gin, “112. Benedict good to see posting.
Whats going on with these polls and the election?”
Good question.. I suspect we are seeing uncertainty combined with changing certainty to vote.
What I can tell you is that the biggest danger Conservatives face is complacency.
I am not complacent.. I am going to be working my nuts off!
128. “Do you accuse opposition parties of “infantilism” and “a fit of pique” if they vote against the SNP budget in the Scottish parish council?”
No, I reserve such invective for those who think that a parliament with primary legislative powers is a parish council! Actually, I defended the Greens for their decision to vote against the budget last year. I didn’t agree with it, but I thought it was a perfectly logical vote.
119 - spot on Sally. The complete ignorance of the economic reality amongst the general population at large never ceases to amaze me. The huge bear market that’s coming over the next 3 years whilst causing great pain and suffering to people, will also I believe be very much a cleansing process for society for it will hopefully consign the celebrity culture to the dustbin of history, as well as all the rot that pervades our economic system as it is currently constituted - bring it on, its baked into the cake and regardless of the result of the GE, its going to happen, the forces behind it are just too powerful now.
Cameron needs 38% as a minimum, 40% preferably, and for that to happen he has to peel back unhappy potential voters who will vote UKIP.
No point telling them that it is a wasted vote, they want to protest. They protested over Europe and the parties chose to ignore them.
Cameron needs to say things which without committing him will bring 2% or so back, maybe half the UKIP expected vote.
he cannot chase the BNP vote, although at the end the rules will go in mad panic, and perhpas both Labour and the Tories will be promising changes to immigratuon that neither has the remotest intention of doing.
Promising to hold a referendum on being in Europe within 12 months to decide Britain’s future position on Europe would be enough. Even if it would all be contrived candy floss.
Mrs Kellner would therefore not have a 5 year unelected rule and access to her own plane to fly around the world putting Britain’s foreign policy position, sorry her position and saying it is that of Britain and the entire EU.
Those anti immigration, anti europe voters who have been let down by all 3 main parties in England will lose the Tories many marginals, so they need to get them on board.
problem for the Tories is if they go against UKIP to hard these people will fall into the BNP protest camp in well over a 100 seats they are standing in, and many BNP candidates would then save their deposits, an honourable outcome.
One of the things about UNS is that it is very unlikely to be spot on - rather like a single opinion poll is unlikely to be spot on.
Therefore, before criticising its lack of accuracy, one really has to exclude that portion of any deviation which might be due to chance alone.
IIRC, both Andy Cooke and I came to similar conclusions that the 95% CI for Lab and Con seats, assuming no other effects apart from random variation, was around +/-9 seats, and the equivalent for the LibDems was around +/-5 seats…
After the event, most analyses try to “explain” the reasons for any deviation in each and every seat, be it due to regional effects, targetting, tactical voting, etc. A proportion of these results will actually be due in part or in total to randomness.
113. You may be counting chickens a bit early.! Nick Ainger has quite a personal vote . Moreover, in the Welsh Assembly Elections the Tories won the seat by just a handful of votes - Labour may well be a bit stronger now.
142 “it will hopefully consign the celebrity culture to the dustbin of history”
Whilst I’m all for this, isn’t the evidence that in times of economic turmoil people seek more distraction?
137 - not a chance sadly Voreas. Living standards will decline more than 99.9% of the people believe possible over the next 3 years - this is April 1930 in the Great Depression, or early 1720’s before the South Sea bubble. Debt deflation is the daddy of them all when it comes to economic catastrophes.
123. Proportional loss and the MOE are not compatible bedfellows.
Jon Craig:
TV Debates:
ITV - 15.04.2010
SKY - 22.04.2010
BBC - 28.04.2010
137. “Anyway I know how you like to have the last word and I can’t afford to stay up all night so it is all yours.”
Did you copy and paste that from the last time? As catchphrases go, I fear it may have a severely limited shelf-life.
146 - that was possibly slightly too strong a statement Tabman - interestingly in the 1970’s in harsh economic times, there was a lot of ‘escapism’ pop songs written. But when people are struggling to make ends meet, the very idea of reading about lifestyles that are just in outer space compared to their reality - I think most people are just going to say give us a break, we don’t need to hear about this guff. Social trends and cycle analysis by Robert Prechter I find fascinating on this point.
FPT 208 tim. Poor Dave! not exactly a milk tray moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ya5kh4_ZM&NR=1
fpt. Seth. Do you think it was wise for a leader of a major party to get into join up with one of the sectarian parties in Northern Ireland when he’s trying to become Prime Minister and will be called upon to act as honest broker?
151 - I was thinking of the 30s and Hollywood glamour.
134 tim, since you’re posh and claim to be rich, are you a friend of the Murdochs?
The fluffy Cameroon approach doesn’t mesh with Sun readers so there’s a limit to what the Sun can do under the circumstances.
On the other hand the Cameroons started fluffy and what little momentum they have is fluffy. It doesn’t fit with the current crisis situation but i don’t think the current team could successfully change tack now even if they had it in them.
154: Tim and Moribund strike me as false flag operations, or they’re Ed Balls.
155 (cont) PC & right-wing alternating daily doesn’t average out to fluffy. It averages out to annoy the f**k out of everyone.
“Have Ashcroft’s millions fatally wounded Tories?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/have-ashcrofts-millions-fatally-wounded-tories-1918834.html
152 - ‘Do you think it was wise for a leader of a major party to get into join up with one of the sectarian parties in Northern Ireland when he’s trying to become Prime Minister and will be called upon to act as honest broker?’
Well, George W and Labour clearly think so because they’ve been demanding that Dave exercise his ‘influence’. They can’t have it both ways.
145 - Well even the Labour people posting on UK polling report say they’ll lose.
That’s before this news.
103 James Kelly
The UUP’s stance was not a matter of principle, it was a fit of pique at not being take seriously enough in the negotiations - ironically almost identical to the way the DUP used to behave when the UUP were the leading party.
Whereas I prefer Yokel’s more considered take on events, I am intrigued by the extension of your argument.
What exactly was the outcome of the DUP behaviour that you believe the UUP are ironically imitating?
Would a similar outcome be equally ironic?
158 No. What’s the next question Gabble?
152 - I’m sure if the SDLP’s couple of seats would push Labour over the line you’ll suggest they don’t accept them in the parliamentary party as you wouldn’t want to mess in ’sectarian’ politics.
159:The idea that George W is Sitting in Texas worrying about Northern Ireland is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.
161 - Furthermore, this is almost certainly the political thinking behind the UUP move.
It’s probably good politics, if a bit shameless
Labour want to drag out the Gurkha question back into the limelight weeks before an election? What are they thinking? They took a big hit last year from it.
Attacking Joanna Lumley = fail. Though I would LOVE to see her taking on Phil Woolas again.
158 Gabble
“Have Ashcroft’s millions fatally wounded Tories?”
No.
But when the election is over and he diverts his millions into his proposed online publishing venture, I suspect they might fatally wound the Guardian, Observer and Independent. I look forward to their front pages when Cameron announces that Ashcroft’s new venture has an exclusive contract to carry all government classified advertising.
Trying to think what would be best Tory tactics if they wanted to just lose by a little bit. Hard to figure.
164 - Nearly, the funniest thing, was the Guardian portraying George W Bush and the DUP as the men of peace.
Re 158, Gabble ““Have Ashcroft’s millions fatally wounded Tories?””
No, but it is interesting to note that a government controlled office relieved him of his obligations whilst the party that controlled the government gained from similar arrangements and have even made a non dom a Privy Councillor!
Impressive stuff. That said the public don’t care even if Polly does.
161. “What exactly was the outcome of the DUP behaviour that you believe the UUP are ironically imitating?”
The most immediate outcome was that the political process was needlessly frustrated for years on end. But yes, I of couurse know what you’re getting at, but I fear you’re going to be disappointed in your hope for more ‘irony’ of that sort. It worked for Ian Paisley because he was playing the part he was born for - by contrast Reg Empey is about as convincing a hardman as Ross Kemp. A party can only prosper by playing to its strengths.
149. TV Debates:
ITV - 15.04.2010
SKY - 22.04.2010
BBC - 28.04.2010
BBC debate clashes with Champions League semi-final 2nd leg live on ITV1 - this is absolutely crazy IF an English team is involved.
168 - By acting as Labour/Gordon Brown lite
158: “Have Ashcroft’s millions fatally wounded Tories?”
Not enough people read the Dependent for it to matter what they think.
Labour in freefall, what price tories 40%+ in GB, surely a giveaway for all the blue bloods…
“John Curtice: Battle narrows down to the key marginals”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-curtice-battle-narrows-down-to-the-key-marginals-1918835.html
Sorry of already posted, but Fitch fires a shot across the bows
Fitch Ratings has delivered a serious blow to the credibility of the Government’s budget plans, warning that Britain risks a loss of investor confidence and erosion of its AAA rating unless it maps out clear austerity measures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7407663/Fitch-warns-Britain-and-questions-Greek-rescue-as-sovereign-risks-grow.html
“Cameron: ‘Sam’s my Gok Wan’”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2886088/David-Cameron-says-wife-Samantha-is-his-personal-Gok-Wan-style-guru.html
Not sure the frontline is the right place for an ‘undecided’.
172. I think Cameron looks fabulous, he’s got that whole ‘wobble’ thing going on.
172 Mike L
I wouldn’t bet on the BBC Debate going ahead anyway. Sky have been sympathetic to the SNP case previously (and Murdoch would love to hurt Labour), STV might well be willing to do a deal as well - compensatory time is all that’s needed.
Not only is the Beeb the most intransigent, they have the 3rd debate and everyone will be bored out of their minds with the Leader Debates by then, so the political consequences of switching them off would be minimal - especially if there’s also football on TV!
171 James Kelly
I don’t know if Yokel is still up, but he has been careful to avoid predicting how far the UUP will advance at the GE. I suspect because the extent is a known unknown. Hardman or not, Empey’s position on P&J is likely to play favourably with his electorate. I suspect though there won’t be a reversal of fortune equivalent to that achieved by Paisley (yet!).
But I am not the right person to comment. Let’s hear from the qualified posters on pb.com.
176 - A general election comes down to the marginal seats?
You can tell why he’s a professor of politics. Devastating insight like that is why people buy the Independent.
181. “But I am not the right person to comment. Let’s hear from the qualified posters on pb.com.”
Wise words, Seth, but it may be a long wait. Chris g100 is nowhere to be seen.
172 - not all of us are football fans.
180. It’s an interesting point about STV, Oldnat - as I understand it they have a lot of autonomy about opting out of the network schedules. When the ITV negotiators concluded the deal on the debates, were they nominally representing the entire network, or were they only representing ITV plc, ie. excluding STV and UTV?
172 - We could potentially have an all English semi final, that will do wonders for the debates rating.
Now the debate dates are known it is easier to formulate an attack via Ofcom on equal time by PC and SNP.
Come on Tories. One more heave…..(courtesy of Tim)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rknh6kkrJ80&feature=player_embedded
James - a friendly question for late at night: Do you know the difference in the official title between the office that Alex Salmond holds and the one that Gordon Brown holds?
(Clue: They are both “Something” Minister)
With aljaBeeba fighting FOI requests as to what really happened to secretly organise the debates, and whether they operated as per their public charter requirements, it would appear like Ashcroft that they have something to hide, and by being sneaky it will come back to bite them.
164 AnnaK, maybe his close friend and fellow warmongerer Tony Blair asked him to make the call. Remember him Labourites? He used to run the show, whilst Brown held the purse strings and paid for all the bombs that rained down on innocent Iraqis.
186. We’ll have an all English debate as well. Unless James Kelly and his lawyers do the business.
189. You’ve got me, Disraeli - unless you’re referring to the fact that they both have the same title in Gaelic, but it’s probably not that.
OT, another reason for Stupak to be optimistic that he’ll figure out a way to support Healthcare:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/report-stupak-gets-a-primary-challenge-from-the-left.php?ref=fpa
The BBC debate should be the one to get the biggest ratings by far because:
1) ITV audience is much less interested in current affairs
2) Sky audience is tiny and their debate is on foreign affairs which is much less of a Party issue
3) BBC debate is on the economy (ie the subject of most interest) and BBC always get much higher audiences for big events - partly due to the huge cross-promotion which they do.
So putting the BBC debate up aginst one of the biggest football matches of the year is ridiculous.
192 - Nothing the SNP will do will stop them.
As I said, before, the only party that could put a spanner into the works over the debates, is UKIP.
You know the party that came second in the most recent UK wide election (ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems)
152 Roger
Do you think it was wise for a leader of a major party to get into join up with one of the sectarian parties in Northern Ireland when he’s trying to become Prime Minister and will be called upon to act as honest broker?
I agree with SallyC on this Roger. The deal with the UUP was never intended by Cameron to be a short term tactic. There are ‘positioning’ decisions taken by the Cameron team that show they are capable of ‘thinking outside the box’ rather than just responding to current focus group pressure.
The unlinking with the EPP in the EU Parliament is one, the link with the UUP another. The long term objectives are clear even though the strategies have risks. In both cases, the short term electoral consequences may have been disadvantageous, but this increases rather than reduces my respect for the decisions.
If the long term objective of association with the UUP is the normalisation - desectarianising (ugh!) - of NI politics then Cameron should reap the rewards of risk and first mover advantage.
As to compromising his negotiating position, this won’t apply - in fact it is likely to make a Tory government even more of an ‘honest broker’ due to perception of bias. Remember it is the Conservative Party not a Conservative Government that has entered into an electoral pact.
188 Roger, if you’re looking for video excerpts of politicians looking silly, You Tube is a rich source for clips of Brown making a complete t*t of himself. Be it wiping his snotty hands on his tie in the HoC, or emerging from a limo with his trousers tucked into his socks, it’s laugh a minute with Gordon. Enjoy.
185 James Kelly
I’m presuming that ITV were representing themselves - and assuming STV would just follow on (or didn’t give a damn whether they did or not!). However, STV have the legal responsibility for ensuring that their election coverage is appropriate under the law in Scotland for all three of their transmission areas - not ITV. As far as the South of Scotland is concerned ITV now wants to give up its south of Scotland broadcasting rights completely and the Government is inviting bids to take it on under a pilot scheme to support local media.
196. “Nothing the SNP will do will stop them.”
There was similar complacency about the verdict of the court in 2000, but the SNP won their case (even though by all accounts they weren’t actually expecting to!).
But if UKIP are the ones to put the spanner in the works, that will do just as well. No jealousy in these parts!
@198 - or this Edp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00549/gordon-art_549419p.jpg
196. A little bit of UKIP might be quite fun in the debates. Lord Pearson makes Cameron look like Jim Royle.
202 - It would be fun, though Gordon Brown would have two Old Etonians to attack. He’d be in his element.
196 TSE
All the Beeb has to do is to offer compensatory time in Scotland. If they want to try breaking the law, then the consequences are on their own heads.
199. “As far as the South of Scotland is concerned ITV now wants to give up its south of Scotland broadcasting rights completely and the Government is inviting bids to take it on under a pilot scheme to support local media.”
That’s great news, I hadn’t heard about that. So Stranraer won’t be getting its ‘local’ news from Gateshead anymore?
205 James Kelly
http://www.dgstandard.co.uk/dumfries-news/local-news-dumfries/local-news-dumfriesshire/2009/12/30/dumfries-and-galloway-standard-launches-bid-for-local-tv-coverage-51311-25490159/
194- Stupak did a bit of elaboration on his position today:
“”If I didn’t” cave in November, “why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through? Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing,” Stupak said. What’s changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.
But Stupak made one thing very clear: While he’s optimistic, there’s a lot of confusion about how the House would structure a bill that he could vote for. Stupak says “the majority party can get it done. Where there’s a will there’s a way.” But: “No one has said here’s how you do it, here’s the legislative scheme.”
Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill’s problems on abortion later: “If they say ‘we’ll give you a letter saying we’ll take care of this later,’ that’s not acceptable because later never comes.”"
http://weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/stupak
195 Mike L
So putting the BBC debate up aginst one of the biggest football matches of the year is ridiculous.
Gordon will solve this problem by wishing the English teams luck in the quartet finals.
208 Seth O. Logue
Gordon’s going to restrict the English teams to 4 players only?
204 - Without breaking confidences, and as mentioned before, I do know someone who works in the legal and compliance department of a major broadcaster, they have already worked out their legal positions on this, they are very confident.
If there was a simultaneous Scottish Parliament elections at the same time as the GE, the SNP may have a stronger argument.
The most the minor (in terms of UK vote share) parties will get is a note before and after the debates, is that there are other parties and candidates standing.
206. Thanks, Oldnat. It seems people power can occasionally triumph - what’s being proposed even sounds superior to the old situation of a Carlisle-based station.
210. “Without breaking confidences, and as mentioned before, I do know someone who works in the legal and compliance department of a major broadcaster, they have already worked out their legal positions on this, they are very confident.”
I don’t have to break any confidences to tell you that they thought exactly the same thing in 1995 and 2000, and were proved wrong on both occasions. As Oldnat will confirm, it’s not just not politicians that can be absurdly Anglo-centric in their presumptions - it’s lawyers too.
209 oldnat
Pederast alert!
212 - With the greatest respect, 1995 and 2000 weren’t years in which a nationwide election was taking place.
Next.
214 - Nationwide Election = General Election.
215 TSE
Are you on kidnap defence duty tonight?
214. With even greater respect, the SNP’s case is just as strong given that elections are taking place in Scotland, and they are recognised as one of the four major parties there. Do I really to have to rehearse yet again the unanswerable points about the established practice in the apportionment of PEBs on a Scottish rather than UK-wide basis, and the SNP leader’s absolutely equal participation in the leaders’ specials in both 2001 and 2005?
Next.
210 TSE
They may well be very confident. However the recognition of the SNP as a major party in Scotland pre-dates the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Consequently, while the occurrence of elections for the Scottish Parliament impose restrictions on broadcasters outwith Scotland if they transmit programmes here, they are not a necessary condition for the application of fair and balanced coverage during a UK election in Scotland.
216 - Yes
47.”re the Budget - what is the point of a budget just 2 weeks before calling an election and disolving parliament. It is just a manifesto - I hope the media pick up on how utterly cynical and pointless this exercise will be.”
cityunslicker, you would hope so wouldn’t you? But this is the same MSM that has been reporting on this government and its antics for years. Labour under Gordon Brown and his coterie of hangers on have worked out that the more outrageous and dishonest you are, the less likely that lot will call you on it, especially live on air.
220. If there is a budget just before dissolution, the circumstances will be identical to Norman Lamont’s budget in 1992.
oldnat & James Kelly
I agree the broadcasting companies have messed up here, but do you really think Salmond will pursue legal action (as opposed to threats) during a GE campaign?
It seems to me he would be better just taking PR advantage of the ‘injustice’ during the SNP campaign.
218 - Oldnat, the broadcasters have a very well nuanced position. Hence the movement from Leaders debate to Prime Ministerial Contenders Debates.
If you look at the 1995 precedent, that was when John Major gave an interview during a local election campaign, effectively a PPB during the campaign. That was one party getting a benefit unlike the others.
Here it is the 3 main (and only) contenders to be PM.
None of the 3 parties is being disadvantaged.
210. “The most the minor (in terms of UK vote share) parties will get is a note before and after the debates, is that there are other parties and candidates standing.”
I think it’s already been announced that the minor parties will each get to give a response on the 10pm TV news (this will work quite well as the debates are 8.30pm to 10pm).
195.MikeL, didn’t the beeb get a very big audience for the BNP leader’s appearance on QT? IIRC, after all the hype and hysteria, they brought the time forward and got something like 8 million to tuning in?
224 - I had heard it would be an extra PPB after the 10pm news.
223. “Here it is the 3 main (and only) contenders to be PM.”
There’s no such thing, and a court will presumably be looking at the actual constitutional position, rather than convenient assertions from three parties with a vested interest that their leaders represent the three ‘candidates for PM’. As I’ve pointed out before, it is simply not necessary for a party to stand in a majority of seats for its leader to become PM, so such an assertion will not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
I’d be very interested to know if your ’source’ is located in London, and if so whether detailed advice has been taken from Scottish legal experts on the likely attitude of a Scottish court.
217 - James, well there is the London Mayoral Debates principle, which allowed only the 3 major parties to take part in the debates arranged by the BBC, ITV etc.
JK and TSE. Do you know how long it’ll take for any legal challenge to be sorted out in court? Because now we’ve got dates for the debates it all becomes rather time sensitive, does it not?
222 Seth O. Logue
Legal recourse is always a last step. SNP/PC are simply asking for arrangements that give them compensatory time. It’s quite easy to do - especially for STV/BBC Scotland. If Sky were to offer something appropriate (even joint PC/SNP time might be acceptable) then there would be no need to go to court.
I have no idea what the SNP leadership will actually do (Alex doesn’t phone me up and ask my advice!) but my original post suggested that they might target the BBC one - since they have an additional duty in terms of public broadcasting.
222. “It seems to me he would be better just taking PR advantage of the ‘injustice’ during the SNP campaign.”
I disagree with that, Seth - the stakes are too high, because if this stitch-up is allowed to stand, it would set a precedent for all future Westminster elections.
Obviously a negotiated compromise is by far the preferred solution for the SNP, but it does appear that at least one of the broadcasters thinks that it’s beneath their dignity to even recognise the SNP’s stake in these matters. There may come a point where there’s no real choice for the party but to go to court. But I presume the focus of any legal action would be compensatory coverage, in line with what they secured in the 2000 case I referred to earlier. It doesn’t sound like they’re going to press for broadcast of the debates to be blocked in Scotland.
227 - My source is based in London, and have taken advice from both Scottish and English legal sources.
The point is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will undoubtedly come from one of the following parties
1) The Conservative and Unionist Party
2) The Labour Party
3) The Liberal Democrat Party
And thus, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are the entitled to put their case for their parties.
225. Christina - yes you are exactly correct.
I think we’ll have to wait and see what happens. It could be a possibility that if the CL semi involves an English team (which won’t be known until much nearer the time) that the BBC debate will go back 24 hours.
228 TSE
In England you only have 3 “major” parties. We have four. Your case falls as being irrelevant to the legislation.
229 - It depends if the SNP launches an appeal via the Scottish system and they and/or another party launches an appeal via the English Legal System.
234 - No, relatively speaking, in a nationwide election the SNP has a lower share of the vote, than the BNP had in London Mayoral Elections.
233.MikeL, thanks for that. I cannot believe that the BBC wouldn’t allow a bit of flexibility to avoid such a clash either after the way they exploited that QT to get the best viewing figures possible.
232 TSE
As a lawyer you should know better than to argue from a basis of the “likely” situation. There is nothing in either English or Scottish constitutional law which suggests that elections in individual constituencies are there for the purpose of selecting a PM from a limited range of politicians.
236 TSE
Remind me never to hire you as a lawyer! Vote share is only relevant as part of a process by which a party gets “major” status. The BNP did (and does not) have that status in GB - there is no separate “English” status. The SNP does have that status in Scotland.
TSE, do you Scotland as an equal partner in the union with equal rights or a 10% add on that has to do what the other 90% say?
As it seems to be the latter, your position on whether Scots should see their Scottish government in the key election debates in Scotland id understandable.
If the Tories were banned from being covered in England it would be on a par with how the SNp not being shown is perceived in Scotland.
232. “The point is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will undoubtedly come from one of the following parties
1) The Conservative and Unionist Party
2) The Labour Party
3) The Liberal Democrat Party”
And that’s precisely the point that won’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. There are two ways of looking at this - who are the contenders for PM in ‘the real world’, and who are the contenders for PM according to the strict constitutional position. If you choose the ‘real world’ option, there are in fact only two contenders for PM, namely the leaders of the following parties -
1) The Conservative and Unionist Party
2) The Labour Party
Alternatively, if you choose the purist constitutional view, there are literally several thousand contenders for PM at this election, because the monarch can appoint any MP or peer who commands the majority of the house. That can perfectly easily be the leader of a small party at the head of a complex coalition - there are countless examples of that happening in other countries. Even in the UK, a Labour Prime Minister was appointed in 1924 despite his party having fewer than a third of parliamentary seats. On that basis I don’t see how it can be said that the SNP parliamentary leader is not nominally a contender for PM in precisely the same way that Nick Clegg is.
So under neither of these alternatives would a three-way debate be justifiable. But my guess is that a court would quickly disregard the whole ‘Prime Ministerial Debate’ wheeze as the red herring it is, and adjudicate the matter on the basis of what is appropriate for the parliamentary election this actually is.
238/239 - Then you wont really like the broadcasters fallback positions.
Which I know will really enrage nationalists.
TSE, and anyway, Who else will ask for the troops to come out and ask for Trident to be cancelled between the blancmange three?
242 TSE
As I understand it, your insider information relates to Sky. Has s/he told you of the BBC/STV positions?
242. “Which I know will really enrage nationalists.”
Oh, do tell - you know you want to.
240 - In Parliamentary terms, I view Scotland as less than 10% of the Union.
59 Seats out of approximately 650 seats.
As noted above, if their were concurrent Scottish Parliament elections as the GE, the SNP would have a water tight case for an additional Scotland only debate.
232. In 1931, the PM led a parliamentary party just 15-strong [highly unusual, though he was the incumbent PM]
I have to agree though. The SNP have 1% of the MPs and are fielding candidates in just 9% of seats in the UK. It’s not an anti-SNP position, but there has to be a reasonable cutoff somewhere, and the SNP (at the moment) just don’t justify inclusion.
219 TSE
A bit of Gilbert & Sullivan to keep you going through the night. Not to be sung or whistled in the presence of grandparents (or mother!).
Buttercup.
A many years ago,
When I was young and charming,
As some of you may know,
I practised baby-farming.
Chorus.
Now this is most alarming!
When she was young and charming,
She practised baby-farming,
A many years ago.
Buttercup.
Two tender babes I nursed:
One was of low condition,
The other, upper crust,
A regular patrician.
Chorus. (explaining to each other)
Now, this is the position:
One was of low condition,
The other a patrician,
A many years ago.
Buttercup.
Oh, bitter is my cup!
However could I do it?
I mixed those children up,
And not a creature knew it!
Chorus.
However could you do it?
Some day, no doubt, you’ll rue it,
Although no creature knew it,
So many years ago.
Buttercup.
In time each little waif
Forsook his foster-mother,
The well born babe was Ralph —
Your captain was the other!
Chorus.
They left their foster-mother,
The one was Ralph, our brother,
Our captain was the other,
A many years ago.
244 - They have.
It is interesting.
247. That’s not the point, Rod. The point is whether the four main parties in Scotland receive fair coverage within Scotland. As Oldnat has pointed out, that can be achieved without disrupting anything that is broadcast in the rest of the UK.
247 RodCrosby
We’re not arguing about “inclusion” - simply “fair and balanced coverage” as required by law.
248 TSE If they have a “fallback position” then they must have considered that their current stance may not hold. I’d be amazed if your source has told you the STV position, as opposed to the ITV position which would apply in Wales.
245 - Well one of the fallback position, the debates will only air in England.
However the broadcasters will argue, that those with Sky in Scotland will be able to watch the debates on channel 974 (BBC1 London)
And with the freeview, BBC iplayer, you tube, and sky player, it will be impracticable to enforce a ban in Scotland.
248 - All lawyers have various scenarios planned out beforehand.
We always work on the principle of what might happen if the judge rules against us every point of law (even if the law is on our side)
It seems channel 974 should also be limited to showing the debate in England. Is that hard to arrange?
And you did not really answer my question, essentially whether you see Scotland as an equal partner in the union with rights to have its own laws within its own borders.
251. I think if the SNP have any sense, in those circumstances they would say to the courts that a blocking of the broadcast in Scotland would be fine, and that they would of course not seek the courts to enforce that block to an impracticable degree. Since only a tiny percentage of Scots would watch the debates on Sky/Freeview/YouTube, in such a scenario the conditions for fair and balanced coverage would essentially have been met.
I mean, if YouTube is going to be prayed in aid, it could be argued that no broadcaster has any responsibility to ensure balanced coverage at any time!
249. With respect, that’s not the point either. I have no objection to or interest in Salmond taking part in three debates shown in Scotland with the leaders of the Scottish Labour, Tory and LibDem parties…
That is the sensible and appropriate solution.
If you insist on Salmond being beamed UK wide, you must surely include Peter Robinson, Martin McGuinness, Elfyn Llwyd, Mark Durkan and why not George Galloway?
253 - Limiting would be difficult as I understand it, as the slots are not managed by sky, but by the bbc. It would not be possible to encrypt them.
Sorry for not understanding your question.
I view Scotland as an equal partner with rights to have its own Laws.
251 TSE
That’s hardly news! The fact that the agreement between the 3 Unionist parties and the 3 broadcasters specified that the debates would all take place in England was pretty obvious in that respect.
That viewers in Scotland would manage to use the internet or select an English TV channel is unlikely to be seen as a justification for broadcasting these debates on mainstream Scottish channels.
The test of “reasonableness” always applies.
Such a fallback position is, of course, a gift for the SNP. All they are asking for is equal time, and the English broadcasters go off in a cream puff and say “You do it our way or you get sod all”! Bring it on!
254. Of course, on TVcatchup.com you can watch most channels live online, provided you’re in the UK. It’s basically impossible to block access to any programming nowadays.
255. “With respect, that’s not the point either. I have no objection to or interest in Salmond taking part in three debates shown in Scotland with the leaders of the Scottish Labour, Tory and LibDem parties…
That is the sensible and appropriate solution.
If you insist on Salmond being beamed UK wide, you must surely include Peter Robinson, Martin McGuinness, Elfyn Llwyd, Mark Durkan and why not George Galloway?”
At this point, I’m going to have to say with even greater respect that you’ve completely misunderstood my post. You’re answering a set of points that I didn’t make. But for the record, SNP inclusion in Scottish debates is categorically no solution whatsoever - it doesn’t even begin to address the issue. (In fact it ignores it.) That principle was fully accepted by the broadcasters in both 2001 and 2005 when there was a programme featuring the SNP leader alone in addition to Scottish debates with the other leaders. This was necessary to balance out the leaders’ specials featuring the three GB-wide party leaders.
255 RodCrosby
It’s sad that you take such an insular attitude, but you don’t seem to have understood that the debate has moved on from the original negotiating stance.
It’s a very simple position. There are 4 major parties in scotland. The law requires that they get equal time in broadcasting in Scotland. The English debates, as currently planned and if broadcast in Scotland, would give 3 of these parties an additional 90 minutes each. As a democrat, why would you think such a proposal to be “fair and balanced”?
260 - Has the SNP considered 270 mins of Cameron, Clegg and Brown may well boost the fortunes of the SNP?
261 - LOL - A very good point
261 TSE
I don’t know about the SNP - but see my original post on this topic. Wiping out the 3rd debate and relieving the Scots of the crushing boredom of these guys could prove an electoral dividend!
262/263 - I have a strong belief that the Brown epiphany that Stuart Dickson talks about will happen during one of these debates.
The more people that see it the better.
You just know he’s going to smile during a question about the effects of the recession, and he’s going to tell some family who is about to have their house repossessed by a state owned bank that they should view it as a benefit of Voting Labour.
Right my daughter is up, so I’m going to leave you all, and go pick her up and sing some rolling stones songs to her.
It’s OK. He’ll do that in Debate One (on English domestic issues) - we don’t need the other two
260. I’m not insular and I’m not anti-SNP. I’m just trying to look at it practically. The equal-time thing is a red-herring.
The national networks, BBC, ITV, Ch4, Sky etc beam to Scotland, don’t they? When politics is covered, you usually get a Labour, Con and LibDem talking head. Not usually an SNP or smaller party spokesman.
So the SNP have been deprived of their “fair share” of airtime for donkey’s years by your logic. The way that is addressed is through any separate regional programs the Networks may operate.
And a separate regional debate would achieve the same thing.
267 Rod Crosby
You really don’t understand - poor you.
Separate debates do nothing to produce compensatory time, if the other 3 major Scottish parties are included.
Scotland doesn’t simply have the English coverage you see. The “talking heads” here include the SNP - that’s especially true during election campaigns, where the broadcasters need to observe the law.
Outwith campaigns, yes we are subject to a surfeit of irrelevant stuff from England on health, education etc as well.
267. “So the SNP have been deprived of their “fair share” of airtime for donkey’s years by your logic. The way that is addressed is through any separate regional programs the Networks may operate.
And a separate regional debate would achieve the same thing.”
No, it wouldn’t, Rod. A programme or series of programmes featuring the SNP leader alone would achieve that effect. A Scottish leaders’ debate would not, for the very simple reason that the other three parties would participate in it, despite having already received their Brucie Unionist Bonus of massive extra coverage.
Nytol
There’s a lot of us on here not getting our 8 hours!
269. “massive extra coverage”
But they get that all the time. So nothing’s changed. If the massive extra coverage was so decisive there wouldn’t be an SNP government in Holyrood, would there?
Anyone know if Quentin Davies is still looking for a seat to contest?
273. Crazy rumour going round it might be Bootle.
If so, I’m moving 200 yards into Sefton Central. Oh no, I forgot, Debi Jones might end up my as my MP.
Rock and a hard place…
272. Rod, I’d once again direct your attention to what happened when Question Time leaders’ specials were broadcast in the 2001 and 2005 elections. In both cases, there was a Question Time special shown only in Scotland featuring the SNP leader alone, giving him precisely the same airtime as the leaders of the other three parties received throughout the UK. I’m struggling to see how the broadcasters can resist the argument that exactly the same principle should apply this time round.
I don’t know why Shirley Williams doesn’t stand in Sefton Central once again. I’m sure she’d win.
On another subject, it’s interesting that the number of Tories retiring - at 37 - must be very close to the final figure, not least because of the trouble generated by the late retirements of Peter Ainsworth and John Maples which left their associations with a centrally imposed shortlist.
If the 37 figure is final I think it means that 162 sitting Tory MPs will be seeking re-election, (taking into account the fact that Quentin Davies is no longer a Conservative and the elections of Chloe Smith and Edward Timpson).
So if the Tories win a majority of one seat, with 326 seats, they’d have 164 new MPs, a majority by the smallest margin possible - (in both senses actually).
276. “Baroness Williams of Crosby” is good enough for her and for us, I would have thought…
277. And, as we’ve established with Peter Mandelson, it wouldn’t be legally possible anyway!
rod,
I thought you were more adept in your arguments than you showed above on equal time issues in Scotland.
You cannot stop yourself putting the SNP into the “others” category, whereas in Scotland they are the main game and the “others” are the small players such as Greens and the Scottish Socialists.
Once an anglocentric, always an anglocentric I guess……
279. There are arguments on both sides, but last time I looked this is a UK general election, and Scotland is still part of the UK. So the SNP’s position in Scotland is frankly irrelevant. They may be big in Scotland, but they’re still small in the the UK, as is everyone but the Cons, Labs and Libdems…
280. “There are arguments on both sides, but last time I looked this is a UK general election, and Scotland is still part of the UK. So the SNP’s position in Scotland is frankly irrelevant.”
Then why are PEBs in Scotland apportioned on a Scotland-specific basis, even in a “UK election”? Why do the SNP receive a scrupulously fair share of those despite their standing in Scotalnd being an “irrelevance”?
Answer - because their major party status in Scotland is a highly relevant factor, a principle that has been recognised for decades.
All this hysterical self-excited speculation about Farage v. Bercow in Buckingham is a load of fluffy kerfuffle on top of a hippopotamus wrapped up inside an enigma. People like voting for incumbent Speakers to be their MP. Most people will happily vote for Bercow just as much as they would if he were still a Conservative. People aren’t going to rush off and vote for Farage just because a few excitable right-wingers froth at the mouth about Bercow being an agent of neo-Maoism. Farage will be lucky if he gets 5,000 votes; there will be several thousand votes shared between the other independent Conservative candidates, the BNP and the others, and Bercow will get way over 20,000 votes.
Similarly, the recent deluge of hysterical panic about the wobbling opinion polls and the prospect of a hung parliament is somewhat reminiscent of a mass suicide of deranged religious weirdoes in a cult in America. There were lots of self-important experts nodding sagely in agreement with each other about hung parliaments for a prolonged period from about 1985 right up until 1987, but it all turned into a pumpkin when the crunch came to a head. This time, again, there will be a clear majority in the House of Commons, and all of the self-hysterical professional doom-spinners will have a collective paroxysm of frothbraining which will be of no consequence to the vast majority of ordinary normal dull people. SeanT will not have to commit hara-kiri after all, and PBites will be laughing their heads off at RodCrosby.
282. The rather obvious difference in 1987 is that the polls weren’t in hung parliament territory just eight weeks before the election. Mrs Thatcher would scarcely have called a snap election if they had been.
282 - I pretty much agree with all that.
And with that, I’m off home.
See you online in about an hour (I have lots of work to do when I get home, sadly)
281. I did not mean to imply that the SNP are irrelevant in Scotland, but only that in the context of a UK general election, the SNP’s position in Scotland is irrelevant.
Quite what the Scots want to do about that is up to them.
283. A week is a long time in politics, and memories of the prolemasses are short. Eight weeks in politics is like about nineteen thousand billion aeons. By the time the vapourised pomposity stops cascading out of Dimbleby’s ears, everybody except a few anoraks will have forgotten about hung parliaments.
If the SNP had not won seats at Wastemonster then a devolved government would not have ensued, even been consiidered, ergo the SNP were not and are not irrelevant in a UK election.
The SNP will not have the most seats, but they may be in a position to DECIDE who will be PM.
Some labourites might say they played that role before in the 70’s.
Irrelevant is just a late night bad choice of word. I hope.
286 - you don’t like Dimbleby then. I think he’s marvellous.
288. What makes you think I don’t like Dimbleby? And which Dimbleby anyway? Maybe I was being ectoplasmic in my contrafibularities.
290. Whoa! 288 has suddenly become 289. My 290 was referring to 289 not 288.
288. The SNP is now far more irrelevant in elections to the House of Commons than it was before devolution happened. A Scottish nationalist could easily vote for an SNP administration in the Scottish parliament, but for one of the Unionist parties for the purposes of the higher-level pan-galactic imperialist retained powers at Westminster.
Noviciously Innovatiblanding Filamentuloid?
119 Sally C
There was a good piece from Mark Bathgate the other day (sparked by a Janice Turner article in The Times), where he suggested that the government spending cuts the next British parliament has to introduce will change the way the British public think about politics, and the way the British press cover it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5824068/bring-on-the-serious-economic-debate.thtml
john loony, People vote snp for different reasons, for those that want Wastemonster to continue to make most of the decisions, then voting snp is probably irrelevant.
However, as in Canada, which but for the similar issue of vote rigging in a referendum would be independent today, the outcome is that people vote for change as far along the path as they want to go. For those people who want Scotland to avoid paying for trident and to have a say in fighting wars in the Middle east which the other parties have similar positions about and will not discuss then voting snp is not irrelevant.
It must annoy so many southerners there is this annoying bit of land top the north of carlisle that continues to think it can have a say in mattters at Wastemonster. I detect the anoyance regularly, but a Union is not an amalgamation or assimilation depsite the efforts of many people to assume size conquers all.
The threat of independence meant the snp were chased by MI5, and attempts were made to support pro westmister groups in Orkney and Shetland to secure the oil. This happened only because people bothered to vot eoutside the 3 main parties. Oil figures were fudged and hidden for 30 years in case the true extent of monies going to London was made clear to scots, and they arranged either an oil fund or worse still took all the oil for themselves.
Again this was caused by SNP votes in boxes.
If the SNP had 15 seats at Westminster in a hung parliament, are you telling me that deals would not be done? That would make a vote for the SNP more relevant than ever in my view. the more seats the SNP have the more that westminster has to listen to their viewpoint.
Therefore your comment on being irrelevant is on a par with anglocentric Rod, and respectfully as I see it not thought through to even the most basic level. To say now there is a parliament doung some of the matters the SNP is irrelevant shows a misunderstanding of why people vote SNP, although the media paint the GE picture as a party fight betwen Tories and Labour even though combined they would in Scotland only garner 55% of the vote.
Currently the tory and liberal vote COMBINED for Westminster may be less than that of the SNP (and Labour) parties in Scotland.
Whereas Holyrood is seen as a fight between the SNP and Labour, and therefore one would expect the vote at Westminster will be lower than at Holyrood. If that aspect is what you mean as not being as relevant we would partially agree.
I didn’t say it was irrelevant.