politicalbetting.com

Could retaining the Calcutta Cup impede Salmond’s party?

With the weekend ICM poll showing support for an independent Scotland both north and south of the border the conditions for a strong SNP performance in May’s election for the Scottish Parliament could not be better. Judging by the fierce attacks on Alec Salmond’s party by both John Reid and Tony Blair in the two days there can be little doubt that Labour is worried.

There is a Glaswegian friend of mine who has this theory, which I am sure that others have put forward, that the SNP does well in Scotland when the country is having a bad time on the sporting front - particularly against England. At one stage he was planning a PhD thesis on the subject and had assembled a mass of data which appeared to support his case.

His argument was that if “England have been stuffed at Murrayfield or Hampden Park” then Scottish self-expression has been satisfied and there’s less need for the SNP.

He had an elaborate theory that one of the biggest boosts to the party was the ending of the annual Home Nations Soccer championship in the 1983-84 with its annual Scotland-England match. This took away what had become an annual Scottish ritual which left a void that only the SNP could fill.

It is interesting to correlate the SNP’s performance with the Scotland-England rugby union.

1980 District Council Election - 15.5% - 54 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1982 Regional Council Election - 13.4% - 23 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1983 General Election - 11.7% - 2 seats (Scotland win at Twickenham)
1984 District Council Election - 11.7% - 59 seats (Scotland win at Murrayfield)
1986 Regional Council Election - 18.2 % - 36 seats (Scotland win at Murrayfield)
1987 General Election - 14.0% - 3 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1988 District Council Election - 21.3% - 113 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1989 European Parliament Election - 25.6% - 1 seat (Scotland lose to England)
1990 Regional Council Election - 21.8% - 42 seats (Scotland win at Murrayfield)
1992 General Election - 21.5% - 3 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1992 District Council Election - 24.3% - 150 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1993 (Scotland lose to England)
1994 European Parliament Election - 32.6% - 2 seats
1994 Regional Council Election - 26.8% - 73 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1995 Unitary Authorities Election - 26.1% - 181 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1996 (Scotland lose to England)
1997 General Election - 22.1% - 6 seats (Scotland lose to England)
1999 Scottish Parliament Election - 28.7% - 35 seats (Scotland lose to England)
2000 (Scotland win at Murrayfield)
2001 General Election - 20.1% - 5 seats (Scotland lose to England)
2003 Scottish Parliament Election* - 23.8% - 27 seats (Scotland lose to England)
2004 European Parliament Election - 19.7% - 2 seats (Scotland lose to England)
2005 General Election - 17.7% - 6 seats (Scotland lose to England)
2006 (Scotland win at Murrayfield)

So if there is something in the theory then Labour will be hoping for big improvements the England RFU team. Could Gordon be shouting for the old enemy with the oval ball as well?

Mike Smithson

Poll suggests that she could win 15% more votes for Labour

According to a YouGov poll reported in the Independent this morning 15% of voters said they would be “more likely” to support Labour if Harriet Harman was deputy leader.

Hilary Benn was in second place on this measure with 12% saying they would be more likely to vote Labour but none of the other contenders got into double figures. Hazel Blears - the party chair and other potential female candidate - was, according to the report, down at 7%.

It’s not clear from the newspaper who commissioned the survey and it might well have been a private poll produced by the Harman camp. If it was then we need to see the full detail of how the survey was carried out before coming to firm conclusions.

Political gamblers who risked their money on the Liberal Democrat leadership will recall how contenders tried to influence the race with private surveys and that by asking a different range of questions it is possible to come out with different results. With private polls the only information that’s likely to be made available is that which supports the line of the person or organisation paying.

Whatever this poll could put University of York graduate, Harman, into the favourite’s slot in the betting.

After the 2005 General Election Harman became a Minister of State in the Department for Constitutional Affairs with responsibilities including constitutional reform, legal aid and court processes.

In March this year she relinquished her Ministerial responsibilities for electoral administration and reform of the House of Lords to avoid any potential conflict of interest after her husband, the Treasurer of the Labour Party, Jack Dromey, announced that he would be investigating a number of loans made to the Labour Party which had not been disclosed to party officers.

Maybe a women doing well in the deputy race could prompt Betfair to open a betting market. So far the betting exchange has ignored repeated pleas from punters. Come on Betfair.

Mike Smithson

Labour support drops 4% on the month as LDs get boost

The latest Mori survey, published in the Observer, shows a sharp fall-back in Labour support. Its poll, carried out from November 9-14th, has the following shares with the changes from October - CON 35 (nc): LAB 33 (-4): LD 20 (+2).

The poll is quite old and the field-work finished a week last Tuesday. Thus the whole of the survey was completed before the Queen’s Speech the week before last and was finalised five days before the November ICM poll for the Guardian which we reported here on Wednesday. So Tony Blair’s “big clunking fist” endorsement of Gordon Brown took place after the poll was completed.

Like all Mori surveys the headline figures are based on those who say they are certain to vote. Amongst all respondents Labour has a 5% lead.

The firm has been the only pollster since April to have reported Labour leads and this latest survey is the first to have the Tories ahead since July.

The poll has bad news for Cameron - a decline to 25% of those saying they are satisfied with his performance as leader of the opposition - a product perhaps of the intensive campaign by the Murdoch press in the period just before the poll attacking the Tory leader. This figure, it should be noted, was not subject to Mori’s turnout filter but should be worrying nevertheless if supported by other polling firms. There’s a list of Cameron approval polls here.

My usual Mori comment. Unlike the other main pollsters carrying out monthly polls Mori do not seek to ensure their samples are politically representative by asking how respondents voted last time and making adjustments. For this reason I attach less importance to the pollster than to surveys from Populus, ICM and YouGov.

I should note that the pollster has invited me to a breakfast meeting with leaders of the firm just before Christmas and I will report back on the site.

In the same poll a year ago, just before the change in the Tory leadership, Mori was reporting Labour on 42% - ten points ahead of the Tories. In December 2005 this had changed to a 9% Tory lead - an extraordinary turnaround.

There is an poll in the Sunday Telegraph this morning on view of Scottish independence both north and south of the border. More later on this.

UPDATE: There are voting intention figures in the ICM poll - showing CON 37%, LAB 31%, LD 23%. It is not clear whether this is a normal ICM finding for Great Britain or, as the article suggests, for England alone. Maybe the print edition of the paper will clarify this. The shares are very similar to what ICM had in the Guardian on Wednesday. I cannot recall the pollster ever producing England-only shares but maybe this is different. Maybe not.

A total of 52% of those in Scotland said they favoured independence and, perhaps very surprisingly, 59% of respondents in England supported the proposition. There was also support from 48% of the English group to the notion of English independence.

SECOND UPDATE: The print edition of the Observer makes confusing reading for those trying to work out precisely what was in the Mori poll. It prints two charts - one showing, apparently, a RISE in satisfaction amongst all voters since January for Cameron with a slight decline since September. That does not marry up with the story. Why in heaven’s name don’t they just print a table of numbers instead of fancy colour charts which are highly misleading? Rubbish Observer - Rubbish

The print edition of the Telegraph makes clear that two ICM surveys took place - one in Scotland and one in England. So the vote shares sown above were for England only.

Mike Smithson

The Chancellor trails 19-29 on who would make the best PM

According to Iain Dale an NOP telephone poll for tomorrow’s Sunday Edition programme on ITV found shares of Cameron 29: Brown 19: Campbell 5 when respondents were asked to say who would make the “best Prime Minister”.

A striking feature of the poll is the very high level of don’t knows or refusers - getting on for half of those who took part.

When asked who “had the freshest ideas” Cameron was beating Brown by 39-17. But to a question on national security Brown was beating Cameron by 22-21%.

I do not know whether a voting intention question was asked and further details might appear over the weekend. I am expecting at least one full poll in the papers tomorrow.

Mike Smithson

How serious a financial mess is the party in?

While everybody is focussing on the row over Labour ordering its councillors to pay a proportion of their allowances to help it wipe out its massive debts are we missing the bigger picture - that following the loans for peerages crisis that the party is in danger of going broke?

This latest move, backed by threats of disciplinary action against those councillors not obeying, follows the decision by the party to levy a 15% “tax” on all contributions that are made to the the campaigns of the candidates in the coming leadership and deputy leadership elections.

Labour, surely, would not have brought in draconian measures like this unless it was going through a massive financial crisis.

Clearly conventional fundraising must be extraordinarily difficult at the moment and recent filings at the Electoral Commission have shown how challenging it is for the party to attract money in the wake of the loans for peerages affair.

Just who would want to become a big donor to the Labour party when those who have gone before have had their motives questioned and have found themselves being part of the Yates of Scotland Yard investigation?

So with donors drying up, Tony Blair’s General Election loans having to be paid back and the cost of servicing the accumulated debt rising by the day how serious is the party’s position? It doesn’t look good.

There is the move towards state funding of parties but this is hardly the right climate to have that debate. And why should the Conservative party be supportive of the idea when it, as far as it appears, is finding it much easier to attract gifts?

Forcing through legislation that would provide tax-payers’ money for parties could be highly dangerous for Labour. Why should the public bail them out of the mess they got themselves into?

This is a job that will test Gordon’s political skills.

Mike Smithson

Can the Liberal Democrats Pull Off a Triple Triumph in North London?

The Liberal Democrats have seen their support growing steadily, across Brent, Camden, Haringey and (until recently) Islington. Currently, they hold two seats in these boroughs, Hornsey & Wood Green, and Brent East, which is due to be abolished.

The Liberal Democrats will be aiming to take win Islington South, together with the new seats of Brent Central and Hampstead & Kilburn, in each case, from Labour.

Notwithstanding that Sarah Teather will be fighting Brent Central, I consider that that seat is out of reach. Labour achieved one of their best results in London, in the wards which make up this seat, in May, winning 40% of the vote, compared to 29% for the Liberal Democrats. Sarah Teather is a formidable campaigner, but I can’t see her winning a safe Labour seat, which has one of London’s highest proportion of black voters, a constituency which is very loyal to Labour.

Islington South, on the face of it, looks much better for the Liberal Democrats. This had a Labour majority of just 484 at the last general election. However, unusually, this seat actually showed a swing to Labour in May, who took 32% to 33% for the Liberal Democrats. Both the Conservatives and the Greens polled quite well in this seat, with 15% and 14% respectively. The result may come down to which of the two main parties here can persuade Conservative and Green voters to vote tactically.

Hampstead & Kilburn will probably be the most interesting contest, a genuine three- way marginal, particularly now that Glenda Jackson has said she will be stepping down. The Liberal Democrats led in this seat in May, taking 36% of the vote, compared to 29% for the Conservatives, and 21% for Labour. However, historically, wards where the Liberal Democrats have done well locally, such as Fortune Green, and West Hampstead, have voted Labour at Parliamentary level.

The fact that Sarah Teather will not be standing in this seat may also lead to the wards that come in from Brent East reverting to their old allegiances – to Labour in the case of Kilburn and Queens Park, and to the Conservatives in the case of Brondesbury Park.

Last night saw no change in the four seats that were contested.
Huntingdonshire DC - St Neots and Eaton Ford: Conservative 658, Lib Dem 577. Conservative hold. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote shares hardly altered.
Surrey CC - Englefield Green: Conservative 664, Lib Dem 317, UKIP 281, Labour 150, Monster Raving Loony Party 34. Conservative hold. Although there was no real shift between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, UKIP saw their vote share rise strongly.
Torridge DC - Northam: Conservative 556, Green 414. Conservative hold. In fact, the Conservatives didn’t fight this seat in 2003, when it was won by the Community Alliance. However, the retiring councillor switched from the Community Alliance to the Conservatives.
Walsall Borough - Aldridge North and Walsall Wood: Conservative 1157, UKIP 309, Labour 222, BNP 160, Lib Dem 132. Conservative hold. Unlike most recent contests, the BNP performed very badly here, dropping from second to fourth, while UKIP performed well, getting into second place.

Sean Fear is a London Tory activist