Lots of interesting stuff in the Sundays today including a poll commissioned by the Greens showing that they could be Labour’s coalition partners. You get what you pay for or reasons for Depity First Minister Harvie to be cheerful? In the Scotland on Sunday meanwhile, arch-unionist David Murray backs Alex Salmond for a second term (which Kenny Farquharson somehow construes as being bad news for Nats). To be fair to the Deputy Editor, SNP activists didn’t appear to be over the moon at the news.Â
Coming back to that poll, a poll that shows Labour a good 10% or so ahead, this does suggest that last week’s Ipsos-Mori result with the SNP ahead was ‘rogue’ but I personally do not think so. I have not seen the detail of it but the unaltered results apparently had the SNP 13% ahead and weighting against the 2010 Westminster vote alone has given Iain Gray’s party that lead. Westminster voting intentions seems to be an odd barometer to use given that every man and his dog was voting tactically to keep the Conservatives out last year.Â
So perhaps interventions from the likes of David Murray are the best indications of who is up and who is down in the Holyrood stakes. The entrepreneur may have suffered of late but his influence is unquestionable and not, as some may so crassly put it, in Govan alone. This is after all the man who masterminded the hugely successful South Gyle business park in Edinburgh, there’s more strings to his bow than Rangers Football Club (not that Nicola Sturgeon will be complaining about the endorsement!)
So what of the Greens? Well, it is little wonder that they are releasing a poll in The (Glasgow) Herald suggesting that a Labour-Green coalition is possible, which it still absolutely is and a tantalising prospect at that. There are a lot of juicy second votes available in the West from those who will vote 1at vote Labour.Â
Add to this the consideration that Holyrood’s small party seem rooted to that thin Green line of 5%\6% which can mean anything between 0 and 7 MSPs and one can understand any bout of nerves that the party may be feeling.Â
The Greens were wiped out in Ireland this week, a result that drew the suggestion that the Green movement is biodegradable.Â
Whether this applies in Scotland remains to be seen but when Green MSPs could be anything from Cabinet Ministers to endangered species in a few months’ time, every positive headline and poll result counts.Â
Does YouGov trump Murray? It probaby depends on what colour of rosette you are wearing. Â
#1 by James on February 27, 2011 - 3:09 pm
It’s the same YouGov methodology that the SNP are happy to crow about when it suits them. Oh, and we gave the poll to all the Sundays, not just those you can see online 😉
#2 by James Kelly on February 27, 2011 - 4:18 pm
They may have crowed about the results at times, James, but I can’t believe they’ve ever professed themselves happy with a weighting system based on Westminster party identification.
#3 by James on February 27, 2011 - 4:30 pm
They’ve been happy enough to commission YouGov to do voting intention polling as recently as late last year. Can’t be that against it.
#4 by James Kelly on February 27, 2011 - 4:41 pm
This is pretty thin, James. Rather than cheap jibes, I’d be interested in hearing your defence of a weighting system for a Holyrood poll that’s based on Westmister party identification.
#5 by Daniel J on February 27, 2011 - 9:13 pm
I think the point is that the SNP don’t consider it to be an issue when they are ahead, the second they are shown to be behind they are in uproar.
#6 by John Ruddy on February 27, 2011 - 10:16 pm
Except it isnt based on Westminster anything. Indeed, theres been some discussion at ukpollingreport about YouGov polls overstating SNP support!
YG weight by Party ID – not how people voted at Holyrood, or at Westminster, nor how they voted at a local election, or how they voted for on X-Factor. But they ask which party people identify with – not how they voted. YG know people vote differently at Westminster and Holyrood – they also know that people dont always vote for the party they identify with. Thats what weighting is all about.
#7 by Malc on February 27, 2011 - 11:09 pm
Either way, any poll that has ANY party nearing 60 seats for Holyrood has to be treated with some suspicion, surely?
Also, can I make clear – I’ve said the same about the polls that have put the SNP ahead, and Labour ahead, I’ve no bias in this field. I just think polls using ANY kind of weighting are daft – if you are taking 20 minutes answering polling questions, you are likely to vote. Whether you tell them otherwise is nonsense, in my view.
#8 by James Kelly on February 28, 2011 - 1:11 am
“But they ask which party people identify with – not how they voted.”
That’s quite true. But there are two problems with that –
1) Some people ‘identify’ with different parties for the two types of election. “I’m a Nationalist” for Holyrood (which they might nevertheless deviate from in terms of voting choice, especially on the list) and “I’m Labour” for Westminster (which they might also deviate from, especially for tactical reasons). It’s not good enough to say that as long as YouGov take account of the divergence between voting preference for the two types of election, they don’t have to pay any attention to divergence in party ID.
2) It’s not how the question of party ID is asked, it’s how the weightings are applied based on their answer. Those weightings seem strikingly similar to Westminster voting intention, and it would be interesting to know exactly where those weightings come from.
I’ve no idea if he was right, but Mike Smithson at Political Betting was also suggesting a week or two back that YouGov’s weightings for Mirror/Record readership are woefully out of date, which might be a particular problem in Scotland.
#9 by Una on February 27, 2011 - 4:38 pm
I wonder what left wing or environmental policies are making Greens so keen to cosy up to Labour and criticise the SNP at every turn these days? Are they going to increase taxes in Scotland? Scrap the Forth Road Bridge? Keep us nuclear power free? Or are you impressed at their bang-em in jail policies and their protection of the right to pocket-money price alcohol? Good luck to you getting in bed with that lot!
#10 by James on February 27, 2011 - 5:03 pm
Una, I don’t see any evidence of left-wing policies in either Labour or the SNP. The SNP are better on nukes, as you say, and on justice/booze etc (which is why we supported them on those issues), and closer to our position on the constitution. For their part Labour voted against SNP plans for a new coal plant at Hunterston, they’re a touch better on public transport, and they also voted for tougher carbon emissions targets when Stevenson brought basically flatline proposals.
To be honest, I struggle to see many differences beyond those, though, especially on the cuts. We sat down in good faith with the SNP in 2007 to see if we could work together, and who knows what would have happened if the LDs hadn’t snubbed the talks. All we said today was that if the numbers were as the poll indicated that we’d talk to Labour. Why not?
#11 by James Kelly on February 27, 2011 - 5:41 pm
Most (all?) of those positives you’ve mentioned for Labour are based on how they’ve voted in opposition, which is easier to do (especially when their main aim is to vote down an SNP proposal). Based on past evidence, are you confident they’ll walk the walk in government?
#12 by James on February 27, 2011 - 6:08 pm
That’s a genuine concern.
In exactly the same way, in opposition, the SNP manifesto said:
“In government we will introduce a Climate Change Bill with mandatory carbon reduction targets of 3% per annum and also set a long-term target of cutting emissions by a minimum of 80% by 2050 – above the UK target of 60%.”
Then an SNP Minister came to Holyrood with annual targets of 0% for 2010, 0.5% for 2011 & 0.5% for 2012 (later revised up by 0.5% by accounting for peatland differently).
SNP supporters here say we’ve taken the huff. Quite the opposite, we’re opposing a business-as-usual administration on poverty, the economy and the environment, just as we did from 1999 to 2007.
#13 by James Kelly on February 27, 2011 - 6:17 pm
In that case, can we look forward to you showing some consistency by opposing a business-as-usual administration on the constitution? You claim to prioritise that as an issue, and went into rather startling apoplexy over the non-issue of the tax powers “lapsing”, but the consequences on that front of propping up a Labour administration – especially one led by Iain Gray – are clear enough.
#14 by James on February 27, 2011 - 6:20 pm
You’re startled that the only party talking about using the SVR would be appalled to learn that SNP Ministers let the power lapse and didn’t tell anyone? Really?
And yes, we oppose the Calman proposals already.
#15 by James Kelly on February 27, 2011 - 6:30 pm
That’s a yes to a question I didn’t ask. Will you oppose a do-nothing administration on the constitution? Saying that you oppose Calman but are open to a deal with Labour is rather akin to saying you oppose the SNP’s carbon emission targets, but would still do a deal with them without any further concession on that point.
You know the consequences of an Iain Gray premiership for any progress on the constitution as well as I do.
#16 by James on February 28, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Remember we made a limited deal with the SNP in 2007 despite disagreeing with them on a wide range of stuff.
Like Labour, it’s almost inconceivable that the SNP will ever get a majority by themselves. We’re the only other party in Parliament that supports independence.
Logically, if you want progress on the constitution you need a stronger SNP (and let’s not go over what’s gone wrong since roughly early 2009) and a stronger Greens.
#17 by fitalass on February 27, 2011 - 4:55 pm
“Coming back to that poll, a poll that shows Labour a good 10% or so ahead, this does suggest that last week’s Ipsos-Mori result with the SNP ahead was ‘rogue’ but I personally do not think so.”
The Ipsos-Mori poll fieldwork was not only carried out over a weekend, but also the Scottish school half term holiday weekend.
#18 by cynicalHighlander on February 27, 2011 - 5:09 pm
The Truth Behind Opinion Polls
I think that the Greens are doing themselves and their voters a great disservice by ‘cherry picking’ the results to make them look good and by cosying up to Labour as it means I now have to find somewhere else for my second vote.
#19 by James on February 27, 2011 - 5:25 pm
We asked a standard Holyrood voting intention and published the full figures.
#20 by cynicalHighlander on February 27, 2011 - 11:52 pm
I would ask for your money back.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scottish-politics/1708-scotland-news-opinion-poll.html#comment-33780
#21 by fitalass on February 27, 2011 - 5:56 pm
“We asked a standard Holyrood voting intention and published the full figures.”
Makes a nice change from the dance of the seven veils style drip drip of an SNP commissioned poll.
#22 by cynicalHighlander on February 27, 2011 - 6:04 pm
Type your comment here
But the weighting was done aka Westminster which is a different beast.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3207
Anyway, at the moment YouGov isn’t factoring in likelihood to vote for the Scottish election – we only do it during election campaigns. That said, we’ll probably switch over very soon.
#23 by John Ruddy on February 27, 2011 - 9:22 pm
No it wasnt done according to westminster vote – see Anthony Wells on ukpollingreport – its about they party they identify with – and YouGov know that people will vote differently to that party.
#24 by cynicalHighlander on February 27, 2011 - 10:36 pm
Anthony Wells 3.21pm wrote
Anyway, at the moment YouGov isn’t factoring in likelihood to vote for the Scottish election – we only do it during election campaigns. That said, we’ll probably switch over very soon.
For a SNP13% lead unweighted to return a Labour9% lead weighted has to be questionable in whatever camp one sits.
The tables will be out tomorrow sometime and might give an explanation.
#25 by Indy on February 27, 2011 - 7:12 pm
I don’t know much about polling techniques but if they weight it according to party ID – in the sense of if they say what party do you most closely identify with – that is one thing, If they weight it in terms of what party did you vote for in the Westminster election that is another. Everyone knows people vote differentially, that’s not even worth debating.
We need to see the actual figures – I understand the raw (unweighted) figures had the SNP ahead. It’s how they weight it that is the issue.
Although I have to say I would not read too much into either the MORI poll or this one. Everyone who is out chapping doors right now, whether in Labour or the SNP, knows how fluid things are. But it is becoming very polarised – which is not good for the Greens or indeed any of the minor parties.
#26 by James on February 27, 2011 - 7:34 pm
Just FYI, the unweighted figures had us on 9% and the LDs on 5%. I’d love that to be true, and I’d have published it if I thought it was, but there’s a reason why pollsters weight as they do (it makes it more accurate).
Agree there’s a long way to go though, and that people vote differentially.
#27 by Indy on February 27, 2011 - 7:39 pm
I agree – it’s how the weight it. From your point of view if it is weighted according to Westminster voter ID then that would not give you an accurate picture at all.
Also I would not be completely dismissive of that level of collapse in the Lib Dem vote, it is possible that they will go that low in the cities, though I would say there would need to be some kind of geographic weighting as the Highland liberal vote, for example, is a different kettle of fish from Lib Dem voters in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
#28 by James on February 27, 2011 - 7:59 pm
Agreed. I think you’re right about the regional weightings, too. I expect them to suffer hard in urban Scotland but not so much in most of H&I and South, nor in bits of NE and MSF. Gosh, it’s been weeks since we agreed 😉
#29 by Indy on February 27, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Peace in our time lol
#30 by John Ruddy on February 27, 2011 - 9:20 pm
I think that you can read too much into the weighting – especially as it is being spun by the SNP as being about how people voted at Westminster. Perhaps I could quote Anthony Wells over at ukpollingreport.co.uk
“the Yougov weighting is just by party ID – it asks which party people identify with.
If we instead asked “Thinking about Westminster elections, which party do you most identify with†or “Thinking about Holyrood elections, which party do you most identify with†I think we’d get different answers, and some people would give different answers to each question.
However, I think they’d also be much less suitable for weighting! If we mentioned elections, then people would start thinking more about how they voted, rather than which party they identified with, and we’d get a much less stable figure.
Party ID is actually significantly different from voting intention – for example, in 2005 and 2010 there were many people who were Labour identifiers, but who abstainted or voted Liberal Democrat. Party ID is also much more stable than voting intention – for example, the British Election Study found very little change in party ID between 2005 when Labour won by 3% and 2010 when the Consevatives won by 7% – at both elections Labour had a large lead in the proportion of people who identified with the party
This is why it’s useful for weighting – whatever the sort term ups and downs of party support, the proportions of people identifying themselves as being “a Labour personâ€, “a Conservativeâ€, “a Nationalist†or whatever are comparatively steady.
It’s probably not stable enough to be suitable for weighting for a non-panel survey – there’s always the chance of sudden change and therefore I would not recommend it for phone polling, but for a panel based company like YouGov, movement isn’t a problem anyway, since they collected panellists party IDs back in May, and can weight fixed historial data to a fixed historical point.
That said, we do need to track the movement so new recruits to the panel can be intregrated over time. Not an issue at the moment, since most panellists were on the panel in May, but it all needs keeping under constant review.”
So its not about how people voted, but which party they identify with – and as youGov is a panel survey, rather than a random one, they know how people identified with at the 2005 election, the 2010 election as well as how they voted – and often they didnt vote in accordance to their id.
#31 by James Kelly on February 28, 2011 - 1:01 am
That reply still doesn’t strike me as satisfactory. It’s not whether they mention Westminster when asking for party ID, it’s how they weight according to people’s party ID – and those weightings seem strikingly similar to Westminster party preference.
YouGov have form on this – in the run-up to last year’s general election they admitted their Scottish weightings were out of date and adjusted them to benefit the SNP by about 2%. What troubled me was that both the previous and the new weightings had a whiff of being ‘plucked out of thin air’.
#32 by Indy on February 28, 2011 - 12:42 pm
John I think we all know that party ID is different to voting intention.
The key issue here is whether YouGov have underestimated support for the SNP by NOT saying “thinking about the Holyrood elections, which party do you most closely identify with” when it is a poll on voting intentions for the Holyrood election.
It really doesn;t make sense to do it any other way as it does not take account of the differential voting patterns which we all know exist.
#33 by James on February 28, 2011 - 12:51 pm
That’s a serious misunderstanding of the way voter ID is used.
They don’t ask you about it in a poll, it’s part of their panel design, based I think on signup (but certainly not on regular questions in polls like this). And if you say you’re voting SNP now but previously you identified as a Labour supporter, they weight to that Labour ID.
#34 by Indy on February 28, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Maybe I do understand how voter ID is used by polling companies. I know how it is used by political parties but not by polling companies.
So can you explain how they do it and how they ensure that the panel is weighted to take account of party support at Holyrood rather than Westminster?
If you could clear that up it would stop all the arguing which I don’t think is particularly constructive since I feel we don’t really know what we are arguing about. Well in my case anyway.
#35 by Aldos Rendos on February 28, 2011 - 11:07 am
Worth pointing out that the Green’s got smashed in Ireland because they were part of the last Government that was so deeply unpopular, following the IMF bailout (and before that). Which makes it a little unfair to suggest a similar downturn will happen in Scotland.
#36 by Jeff on February 28, 2011 - 1:17 pm
I did a bit of a cut and run on this post; I moved flat over the weekend and only wrote this while waiting for the new landlord to show up – sorry to James who picked up most of the slack (and some abuse!)
Interesting debate about voter ID, something that I won’t add too much to as I don’t really appreciate the subtle differences between that and party affiliation, Westminster vote etc etc but two points to make:
(1) Are voters less likely to voter ID themselves with the SNP as the question, in their minds, is tantamount to support for independence? If so, given that many voted SNP in 2007 who didn’t support independence (and we can now add David Murray to that number) then that would suggest that the poll may be out of sync with reality after all.
(2) Is it not possible to check how far off YouGov was in predicting the Euro result if they used the same, or similar, methodology then? Keeping in mind of course that SNP romped home.
#37 by Indy on February 28, 2011 - 1:27 pm
I could answer that from a canvassers point of view but not from the point of view of a polling company.
From a canvassers point of view the runaway victor, when you ask people which party they most closely identify with, is “none”. If you were using a pool of people who all identified themselves with one party or another then I would say from the start that is flawed. But it can’t work like that otherwise all their polls would be wrong.
It’s very confusing!
#38 by Indy on February 28, 2011 - 1:50 pm
Ah right – someone has just emailed this to me – the full data from the poll http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Life-ScottishGreens-Vote-280211.pdf
“In addition to weighting by age, gender, and social class (weighted and unweighted figures shown in the tables), YouGov also weighted its raw data by
newspaper readership and political party identification.”
They then give these figures:
Political Party Identification (unweighted)
Labour 291
Conservative 222
Liberal Democrat 67
Scottish National Party 289
Others 67
None / Don’t know 322
The weighted figures are:
Labour 478
Conservative 163
Liberal Democrat 126
Scottish National Party 201
Others 25
None / Don’t know 266.
So the unweighted Labour political party identification is 291 but the weighted number is 478.
And the unweighted SNP political party identification is 289 while the weighted number is 201.
So they bump the Labour numbers up considerably and cut the SNP’s.
There may well be an explanation for that but it ought to be provided cause it does not look right.
Another thing that does not look right to me is the Lib Dem figures.
How are these weightings arrived at?
#39 by Jeff on February 28, 2011 - 2:47 pm
Thanks for sharing Indy, doesn’t look right at all does it.
To be fair to the Greens, they don’t instruct YouGov how to apply the methodology.
#40 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 2:49 pm
No, but they did select YouGov as their pollster of choice. Not that I know that others are any better…
#41 by John Ruddy on February 28, 2011 - 5:36 pm
The weighting is designed to adjust the actual figures received so that they meet the profile of the general population. Have a look at the newspaper weightings, which show a massive uplift for readers of the Daily Mirror/Record. Now YG know how many readers of the daily newspapers there are in Scotland, and they know the proportions they ought to be in – and obviously we can see the proportions they got back in from their poll. Or are you saying that there really are more readers of the Guardian and Independent than there are of the Record?
Part of the weighting (and the change due to it) will be due to party ID – part due to the newspaper readership. And YG regularly ask their pannelists what paper they read.
#42 by Indy on March 1, 2011 - 10:33 am
“The weighting is designed to adjust the actual figures received so that they meet the profile of the general population”
That is the issue isn’t it? They have adjusted the actual figures to meet the political party profile of the general population based on what? On the last Westminster election?
We don’t know, doesn’t look like we are ever going to find out so it’s a bit pointless continuing to discuss it lol.
#43 by Sol on February 28, 2011 - 9:30 pm
Jeff,
Just wanted to give my view, I’m not into politics in the way you guys are, but if asked which party I “identify” with I would of said The Greens. However, over the past year, being off work ill I’ve had more time to spend looking into matters a bit closer and I will not be voting for The Greens. I cringe at some of the emails which are sent out, I would expect theses from Labour, not the one time well respected Greens. There is just never anything positive, it’s all too negative.
I wonder how many millions Patrick Harvie would be willing to have Scottish tax payers stump up to have the tax varying powers sit dormant? That’s really been the final straw for me.
Patrick could and should have managed to make some gains for the Green movement through the budget, but he failed to. I just feel sometimes Patrick is standing in the way of progress. As a family of farmers, yoga teachers, artist to up and coming chemical engineers, structural engineers we’re a mixed bunch really but all moving towards the SNP.
I think the SNP has governed really well despite being up against the unionists attempts to vote them down, particularly labour, plus all the bias media.
I never would of thought I would feel this way and I’ve thought about it long and hard as it’s in my conditioning and roots to vote Green.
I will be voting for the SNP as will most of the family, the students who will all be graduating soon are proud of their Scottish roots but they are pondering on departing for a warmer wealthier climate more so if Labour are elected. They just cannot come to terms with the thought of Iain Grey as First Minister or Andy Kerr in charge of finance.
Perhaps tactical voting is needed!
Ps: I do enjoy your blog, sorry for rambling on.
#44 by Jeff on March 1, 2011 - 10:15 am
Thanks for the comment Sol, really appreciate it and lots to think about. I probably don’t have time to give a proper reply now but will try to at some point later on.
Cheers.
PS I wouldn’t rule out the occasional SNP tactical voting post to keep Gray/Kerr at bay as May closes in!
#45 by Jeff on March 2, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Thanks again for the comment, got a bit of time to respond….
I do wonder if we are sometimes more harsh to the ones we love or, in this case, the ones we “identify” with. I am not privy to the emails that SGP send out but it is the proactive positivity that made me respond more to the Greens, both down here in England and up in Scotland. A can-do attitude on insulation, Land Value Tax or revenue raising was a welcome change from a state of inertia that seemed to be creeping into Holyrood with fresh ideas drying up. Not that I necessarily fully agreed with each of these new ideas but at least they were new ideas that would justify the Parliament’s very existence. If there has been some cheap shot messages in the heat of the election campaign then I’d agree that that would be disappointing.
It’s interesting that you mention the tax varying powers as your “final straw”. I guess there are two subtly different ways of looking at the problem: those in favour of paying over the odds to have the tax-power ready to be used (which not many seem to be in favour of) and those who believe John Swinney should have told us earlier what was going on (which a lot of people seem to believe). I don’t really see how Patrick Harvie can be held responsible for the cost of tax-varying powers when John Swinney didn’t even tell the Parliament what that cost would be. It was fair to assume that the powers were still available to be used as, presumably, the Green party had assumed all along and even afterwards, my impression was that the Greens were keen to work constructively with the SNP to get the powers up and running again and use them as originally intended.
Again, agree or disagree with the SGP policy of using those powers but I don’t think the conduct applied in advancing their argument was untoward; from what I could tell from down in London at least. (I don’t think I always get the full picture to be honest)
As for winning some extractions from the SNP budget? Yep, totally valid point of course but I guess there was just such a fundamental difference of opinion that the Greens couldn’t bring themselves to pick a few cheap goodies from what they saw as a £32bn bad deal. I can understand that; it’s not perfect but I can understand it. I do think the Green leadership needs a mini-rebranding before election day if possible, more statesman-like and less huffy but whether the party gets enough media air time to have that chance remains to be seen I suppose.
Anyway, I can totally understand an overriding belief that the SNP beating Labour is more important than a clutch of Green MSPs getting into Holyrood. All I would say is that looking at the individual constiutuency and individual region that you are in, considering how powerful your vote is if used for SNP/Green and then weighing up the risk of zero Green MSPs against to what extent your vote will actually go towards assisting the SNP. That’s what I’d be doing if I still lived in Leith and, truth be told, I probably still wouldn’t know which way I was going to go.
Hope you get the result you’re looking for though!