Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[ICTChris]

20 hours ago, Alan Stubbs said:

I'm not sure about these incumbency advantage shouts.

Could work the other way in some cases. Look at the coverage from Moray. "Could Angus Robertson lose his seat?" on the front page of BBC News a few weeks back. As if that's a news story. Ruth Davidson mentioning Moray as a Tory target and it being all over every paper shortly after that.

The media are out and out advertising tactical voting against the big names. Their high profile isnt doing them any favours there.

Incumbents (usually) have a higher profile than those challenging them and will have the background of having been present in the constituency and of having interacted with people.  Angus Robertson, for example, will have met and dealt with probably thousands upon thousands of people in Moray during the time he's been MP, which has an impact.  He and his staff will have a permanent presence in the community and also, especially in his case, have experience in campaigning that constituency multiple times.  I'd be amazed if he lost.

Most of the SNP MPs don't have that in built advantage as they won their seats a few years ago but I can't see that making a huge difference in most cases.  Also, tactical voting isn't anything new, I remember the 1997 election (and 1992 to a far lesser degree) where Cabinet ministers were targeted with it.

[John Lambies Doos]

Kyle what's the point in posting that if they're no gonnae include the SNP?

Extremely relevant Willie, will give us idea of next WM parliament. There will be a Scottish sub sample to this, but it will be so statistically irrelevant so not worth posting. There are of course Scottish specific polls which we need a bit more of.

[Cheese]

13 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I didnt answer your question because it was brainless.

This is not about a rape clause. This is about a 2 child limit with a compassionate exception for rape victims.

You have decided to take a compassionate exception amd warp it into a disgusting political football by renaming it a rape clause.

You are wrong to do so IMO.

You then compound your disgraceful action by not suggesting something better than that exemption clause.

You've just described forcing a victim of rape to give up their right to anonymity in order to feed their children as 'compassionate' 

Then calling another posters' objections to this as 'disgusting' and 'disgraceful'

What an utter mess of a human being you are.

[strichener]

15 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

You've just described forcing a victim of rape to give up their right to anonymity in order to feed their children as 'compassionate' 

Then calling another posters' objections to this as 'disgusting' and 'disgraceful'

What an utter mess of a human being you are.

The right to anonymity is regarding the press reporting of the crime.  Numerous people, including state actors, already have the details.  People such as the police, victim support, doctor, perpetrator, judge, jury, stenographer, secretary, defence lawyer,  witnesses etc. etc.

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

The right to anonymity is regarding the press reporting of the crime.  Numerous people, including state actors, already have the details.  People such as the police, victim support, doctor, perpetrator, judge, jury, stenographer, secretary, defence lawyer,  witnesses etc. etc.

Yes, because every single instance of rape is reported and taken to court.

[Ira Gaines]

I'm shocked at strichener being totally immoral tbh.

Wait... no I'm not.

[welshbairn]

16 minutes ago, strichener said:

The right to anonymity is regarding the press reporting of the crime.  Numerous people, including state actors, already have the details.  People such as the police, victim support, doctor, perpetrator, judge, jury, stenographer, secretary, defence lawyer,  witnesses etc. etc.

You understand why a rape victim might not want her GP to know about his/her experience presumably. Who else would an average person get to fill out the form?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I can kind of follow Strichener's logic even if I don't agree with it

What's more striking is weird a thing to make a stand on this is.

Even if your moral standpoint tells you that reducing benefit fraud justifies any amount of collateral damage this seems like a strange fight to pick.

There almost certainly is some fraud out there but it surely can't amount to the kind of money that would make any real difference to the public purse but they're still targeting poor single mothers including poor single rape victims

It can't be for the money and they can't think it makes them look like the good guys, it must be because they want to be seen to be "tough"

It's the opposite of "virtue signalling"

"Utter b*****d signalling" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Maybe someone else has a better idea?

[DublinMagyar]

I can kind of follow Strichener's logic even if I don't agree with it

What's more striking is weird a thing to make a stand on this is.

Even if your moral standpoint tells you that reducing benefit fraud justifies any amount of collateral damage this seems like a strange fight to pick.

There almost certainly is some fraud out there but it surely can't amount to the kind of money that would make any real difference to the public purse but they're still targeting poor single mothers including poor single rape victims

It can't be for the money and they can't think it makes them look like the good guys, it must be because they want to be seen to be "tough"

It's the opposite of "virtue signalling"

"Utter b*****d signalling" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Maybe someone else has a better idea?

Strong and Stable?

[DI Bruce Robertson]

 
Beat me to it.
 
We are irrelevant. (Scotland as a whole, I'm not an SNP voter anymore)

Can I ask why " not an SNP voter anymore"?
What drove you away?
What attracted you before?
Who do you intend voting for?
Obviously all the above are asked to be answered ONLY if you are happy to do so.
I'd like to understand your thinking, but also believe, it's none of my business...

[pandarilla]

I can kind of follow Strichener's logic even if I don't agree with it

What's more striking is weird a thing to make a stand on this is.

Even if your moral standpoint tells you that reducing benefit fraud justifies any amount of collateral damage this seems like a strange fight to pick.

There almost certainly is some fraud out there but it surely can't amount to the kind of money that would make any real difference to the public purse but they're still targeting poor single mothers including poor single rape victims

It can't be for the money and they can't think it makes them look like the good guys, it must be because they want to be seen to be "tough"

It's the opposite of "virtue signalling"

"Utter b*****d signalling" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Maybe someone else has a better idea?

This is exactly what's happening.

The savings to the public purse are absolutely miniscule. It's a giant red herring - and angry white van man types get all worked up.

(Just to be clear in talking about the squeeze in benefits generally and not the rape clause specifically)

[topcat(The most tip top)]

This is exactly what's happening.

The savings to the public purse are absolutely miniscule. It's a giant red herring - and angry white van man types get all worked up.

(Just to be clear in talking about the squeeze in benefits generally and not the rape clause specifically)

An overall squeeze in benefits might actually produce enough of a saving to be noticed

I think that it can't be done without causing damage that I'd not like anyone to think I voted for.

Others may think it's easier to do or care less about the damage. That's at least a consistent position

But even if they think the war is worth fighting why persist in a skirmish on the fringes?

[Crùbag]

3 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

Kyle what's the point in posting that if they're no gonnae include the SNP?

SNP have a healthy lead according to the subsample. I'm aware the margin of error is greater in these subsamples (+-8%?) but it still shows Tories not making any real headway. Corbyn's small upturn may even steal Unionist votes from wee Ruth.

 

[ICTChris]

Twitter account @SirSandGoblin tweets UK polling results in cross stitch form, with commentary, for those who like polling and cross stitch.

[Kyle]

21 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

SNP have a healthy lead according to the subsample. I'm aware the margin of error is greater in these subsamples (+-8%?) but it still shows Tories not making any real headway. Corbyn's small upturn may even steal Unionist votes from wee Ruth.

 

I'd suggest that's an outlier. 

[McSpreader]

1 hour ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:

Can I ask why " not an SNP voter anymore"?
What drove you away?
What attracted you before?
Who do you intend voting for?
Obviously all the above are asked to be answered ONLY if you are happy to do so.
I'd like to understand your thinking, but also believe, it's none of my business...

Because if you want to get rid of the Tories you have to vote Labour.

Voting 50+ SNP MP's to Westminster has been a monumental waste of time and an utter embarrassment for Scotland.

You will NEVER get rid of the Tories by voting SNP . Neither will you get independence because the SNP have shown themselves incapable of taking care of Scotland from Holyrood and have divided the nation like no other organisation  in modern history.

The SNP have also totally misrepresented the people that voted for them by misappropriating their votes as support for independence.

 

[John Lambies Doos]

SNP have a healthy lead according to the subsample. I'm aware the margin of error is greater in these subsamples (+-8%?) but it still shows Tories not making any real headway. Corbyn's small upturn may even steal Unionist votes from wee Ruth.
 

I'm afraid a sample of around 50-60 does not give a 8%margin of error.
Totally unreliable I'm afraid. However i still think that the gid guys will poll 15-20% more than the great white unionists hopes in Scotland

[paolo2143]

1 hour ago, McSpreader said:

Because if you want to get rid of the Tories you have to vote Labour.

Voting 50+ SNP MP's to Westminster has been a monumental waste of time and an utter embarrassment for Scotland.

You will NEVER get rid of the Tories by voting SNP . Neither will you get independence because the SNP have shown themselves incapable of taking care of Scotland from Holyrood and have divided the nation like no other organisation  in modern history.

The SNP have also totally misrepresented the people that voted for them by misappropriating their votes as support for independence.

 

You must be joking :-), we had a massive Labour majority in terms of seats and Votes up here in Scotland from 1979 tight through to 1992 and they were totally impotent against the Tory Govt of Thatcher and the reason for this is they are a UK Wide national party so even if they did well in Scotland it meant hee-haw to the Westminster Tories.

Voting in 50 + SNP MP's was best decision Scotland ever made as since the SNP have risen to prominence and especially since 2014 onwards I can assure you the Westminster Govt and Tory right wing press take them very seriously indeed and the fact that the support for independence has remained pretty steady at about 45% means that they can no longer take Scotland for granted, even Theresa May is very careful to try and appease Scottish voters.

Trust me if the SNP and threat of Scottish independence was to dramatically fall we would go back to being totally ignored and seen as an insignificance to Westminster and let's be honest if there was any way the Tories could reverse devolution they would do it in a heartbeat.

[pandarilla]

I thought we were all just ignoring the fanny. He's incredibly tedious.

[McSpreader]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I thought we were all just ignoring the fanny. He's incredibly tedious.

You are all ignoring me ?  

Aww please let me play.......Am I really that  good ?