Angus Reid has released details of a UK-wide poll that contains any number of headlines that can be drawn from it, including:
SNP now UK’s fourth party
Labour holds slight poll edge
Lib Dems slump to 7% in Scotland
SNP and Labour neck-and-neck in Scotland
I, of course, have gone for a different tack, choosing to focus on the result that 60% of Scots disapprove of David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister but a higher still 63% of Scots disapprove of Nick Clegg’s performance as Deputy Prime Minister.
With the standard caveats of sub-sample polling, it is difficult to tell if such a result is intuitive or counter-intuitive really. The Lib Dems shoring up a Conservative Government was always going to be a tough sell in Scotland so it is perhaps expected that they come in for the strongest disapproval. However, Nick Clegg’s defence is that his party has taken the right-wing edge off what a Conservative Government would have otherwise done with some left-wing coalition victories, an argument that is often overlooked and one that I personally have a lot of time for.
However, the numbers do not lie and it seems it will be Nick Clegg’s turn to follow in the footsteps of electorally toxic individuals such as Tony Blair and Barack Obama when May ’11 comes around.
It is of course an issue of trust that is undermining the Lib Dems at the moment. The sight of ‘VAT bombshell’ posters and signed tuition fee pledges moved their poll figures onto the quicksand after the broken promises and it is not clear what may bring them back onto firmer ground. It is also not difficult to imagine Nick Clegg arguing his case north of the border and being booed and jeered throughout, exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are of course a separate entity which may help insulate them from the worst effects of London-based decisions but with little to mark Tavish Scott and his team out as ‘different’ (the student vote is surely now long gone) then of course they will be tarred with the same brush.
With the two-horse race looking certain to be a continuing narrative right up to May 2011, particularly with the SNP closing the gap on Labour, perhaps the best that the other parties can hope for is anything other than a drubbing.
If so, Deputy Prime Minister and his Scottish colleagues have a lot of work to do.
#1 by John on November 2, 2010 - 10:29 am
Probably all fair enough. But:
– who does Labour turn to if the votes don’t add up on May? And then where does all the hyper-ventilation to the LibDems about selling-out get them?
– who exactly does stand for the students then? And by that I mean students, rather than the NUS. If the NUS intend to hold everyone to pledges that no-one had a way of paying for, they might also like to think about what the alternative might be..?
#2 by Jeff on November 2, 2010 - 12:30 pm
John,
I’m not sure Labour needs to turn anywhere if they don’t get the votes in May. A period of introspection will be followed by continued fierce opposition as they’ll be facing up to an SNP(&Green&Lib Dem?) Government in Scotland and a Tory Lib Dem Government in the UK. I agree that the pleading with Lib Dems to join them is getting a bit tiring and could quite easily, as you suggest, backfire.
And who stands for students? I guess that depends on whether one thinks taxes should go up to ensure tuition is free or whether fees are inevitable. I’m for the former but I don’t expect it to happen… As for a party, James is probably right when he says that Lib Dems, SNP and Greens are closest to being ‘the student party’ in Scotland.
#3 by James on November 2, 2010 - 11:24 am
Well, the Greens and the SNP both voted with the Lib Dems to abolish (properly abolish) tuition fees in 2008, so those two would seem the obvious home for students. Having said that, the SNP review to come out after the election sounds suspiciously like a clone of the Browne review, and we all saw what that delivered down South.
#4 by Jeff on November 2, 2010 - 12:32 pm
Is this an admission that the Scottish Greens will be campaiging for a rise in income tax in order to pay for free tuition James?
I grant you, to be fair, that not building a certain bridge could also provide some cash for it…
#5 by DougtheDug on November 2, 2010 - 11:45 am
“The Scottish Liberal Democrats are of course a separate entity which may help insulate them from the worst effects of London-based decisions but with little to mark Tavish Scott and his team out as ‘different’ (the student vote is surely now long gone) then of course they will be tarred with the same brush.”
Jeff, why do you think the Scottish Lib-Dems are a separate entity? The Lib-Dem party has a slightly more powerful regional setup than Labour but it’s a single monolithic party with one leader, Nick Clegg, and you’ll look in vain for a, “Scottish Liberal-Democratic Party”, in the register of political parties held by the Electoral Commission.
#6 by John on November 2, 2010 - 12:02 pm
Doug – to be fair, the SLDs are a separate party in leadership, representation, policy making and conference.
The fact that the system is Federal rather than totally independent should come as no real surprise.
If there was really no difference between the Scottish and Federal parties, then there would not have been the substiantial public differences of opinion over the years (CFP, EU referendum etc)
#7 by Jeff on November 2, 2010 - 12:38 pm
Yep, I agree with John here. One can point to parties registered here and parties registered there but perception is key. Labour have struggled to shake off links with the UK party but for the Lib Dems, for whatever reason(s), it has been much easier to mark itself out as a separate Scottish entity and that may help them out in six months time.
Of course, maybe it was easier because Lib Dems formed neither the Government nor the Opposition in Westminster, which has obviously now changed for the DPM and his team these days.
#8 by Alasdair on November 2, 2010 - 12:44 pm
Whether they have a federal party system or any other will be of no consequence to your average voter they will entirely equate the party in Scotland with that of the one down South.
If they feel scorned by Clegg and co it is entirely conceivable that for the vast vast majority that scorn and resentment will be transferred to the Scottish wing, and a vote ‘against’ them may well be in evidence as voters seek to punish the party for their duplicity.
#9 by DougtheDug on November 2, 2010 - 12:47 pm
John, all that federal means is that the powers of the regions within the Lib-dems are protected by their constitution. It doesn’t mean that the Lib-Dems consist of different affiliated parties or that the regions within the Lib-Dems have any real autonomy.
The Electoral Commission only recognises a single Lib-Dem party across the UK and a single leader who is Nick Clegg.
Tavish Scott has the power to create and run his own policies in Scotland as long as these don’t conflict with, UK policies, don’t conflict with the party’s overall strategy, election preparations or image presentation. The relevant paragraph from their constitution is below.
2.3 The following functions are reserved to the Federal Party (subject to the rights of consultation afforded to State parties and others by this Constitution):
(a) the determination of policy in the areas specified in Article 5;
(b) the Party’s overall strategy;
(c) overall preparations for Parliamentary and European Parliamentary Elections;
(d) the overall presentation, image and media relations of the Party; and
(e) international relationships.
Article 5 in point (a) above is anything which has a UK wide impact.
In simple terms Tavish is a regional leader under the overall control of Nick Clegg who controls UK policy, strategy, parliamentary elections, image and media presentation and international relationships.
Though the Scottish Lib-Dems like to call themselves a party they are as imaginary as a distinct Scottish Labour Party.
#10 by John Ruddy on November 2, 2010 - 8:17 pm
This is the age old SNP trick of denying their opponents even the right to exist. Its actually quite a poor argument, as last time I checked, we are in the UK.
Should the SNP ever achieve independance, then of course it would be right and proper to talk about distinct “Scottish parties”. But then the rules would be different, as I dont see too many foreign parties registered in the UK…
#11 by Chris on November 2, 2010 - 6:21 pm
Whilst the poll is interesting, we need to be slightly careful about sample size. While 2012 respondents is ok for the UK, 179 is not particularly significant for Scotland. This makes the margin of error about 7.5% at a 95% confidence level. Or in English we can be 95% confident that any result is +/- 7.5%.
#12 by Indy on November 3, 2010 - 10:42 am
“This is the age old SNP trick of denying their opponents even the right to exist.”
What a load of tosh.
I fully agree that it is not right and proper to talk about distinct “Scottish” parties when we are talking about the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories. They are not distinct Scottish parties and should not in fact be allowed to describe themselves as “Scottish” on the ballot paper at all.
The only parties that will be contesting the election which are actually Scottish will be the SNP, the Greens and SSP/Solidarity.
I actually have no objection to UK parties standing in Scottish elections, as you say we are still part of the UK at present. But they should be honest about the fact that they are UK parties with UK priorities.
#13 by John Ruddy on November 3, 2010 - 5:25 pm
Indy,
If this isnt the “age old SNP trick”, then why is it that it is always trotted out by SNP supporters on websites, blogs, newspaper comment pages, etc etc all the time?
Its whats called a Straw Man. It doesnt make a blind bit of difference. I and the vast majority of people dont care if a party is called the Society of Literal Dipsticks or whatever. What matters is what their policies are, how “trustworthy” they are on certain issues, and, sadly, on their relationship to other parties (ie how much they hate paty X, which Party Y also hates).
Since these parties ARE perfectly legitimately able to call themselves Scottish on the ballot paper, I take it we’ll be hearing no more about this? Or are you saying the Electoral commission has been defying the law? In which case why hasnt there been a court case?
#14 by Indy on November 4, 2010 - 9:48 am
John Ruddy – of course it matters! If it didn’t matter the UK parties would not make a point of labelling themselves as “Scottish” when they stand for election in Scotland – even when that is a factually incorrect description.
#15 by John Ruddy on November 4, 2010 - 6:44 pm
Indy,
If yuo read my post carefully, you will see I said that it doesnt matter to the vast majority of people in Scotland. The only people to whom it seems to matter are the much smaller number of SNP activists.
#16 by Chris on November 4, 2010 - 10:07 am
This is all a bit yaddy-yah, isn’t it?
What is conservative about the Conservatives? Should only labourers vote Labour? Should the SNP really be called the Scottish Independence Referendum Maybe Party?
Scottishness does not belong only to those who want independence, as I am sure you agree.