Before we get our live blogging underway later today let's have a quick look at one important part of the UK where there are no elections: Scotland. The latest YouGov survey of voting intentions has mixed news for our party:
- In terms of General Election voting intentions the party remains subdued. The Cameron effect may be spreading throughout the north of England but we're stuck on 17%. The more difficult news for Labour is that its own support is down 6% on its 2005 support. Scotland may have a Scottish Prime Minister but they are warming to the SNP. The SNP got 18% in 2005 but are winning 30% now.
- Annabel Goldie, leader of the Tory MSPs, is impressing Scottish voters, however. Just 21% thought Labour's Scottish leader Wendy Alexander was doing a good job. Ms Goldie's positive rating was 41%.
- The best news of all appears to be declining support for independence. According to The Telegraph: "Only 19 per cent of Scots would support independence in a three-option referendum. Nearly three quarters backed keeping a devolved Parliament, either with its present powers or with more responsibilities."
Meanwhile David Mundell, Shadow Scottish Secretary, is in hot water. An article has appeared in the Scottish edition of The Telegraph (not online) suggesting that Mr Mundell has been trying to lobby for George Kynoch in the election of the Scottish Party's Vice Chairman - the most senior position representing activists. Mr Mundell, it is said, wants the incumbent Bill Walker ousted. Mr Walker has been a sometime critic of Project Cameron and the central party may prefer Mr Kynoch, a former Scottish Office Minister. David Mundell has denied intefering in a contest that Annabel Goldie has said should be for grassroots members to determine.
"The best news of all appears to be declining support for independence."
Is that good news? For with the complete failure of British political parties to give the proper representation to English people, as we have see with Ken Clarkes limp and lame response to the West Lothian Question, the only hope we had was for the Scots to go for independence.
Posted by: Iain | May 01, 2008 at 12:01
The Telegraph piece and the poll on Scotland's constitutional choices commissioned by it are laughable.
They fashioned a question so hostile to Independence that it could in no way be described as honest then introduced it into a three way choice and by so doing achieved the result they were aiming for.
Ignore it - and it is a sad day when the once respected Telegraph which I used to take daily prostitutes itself like this.
Two more reliable polls done by respected polling organisations in recent weeks asking Scots a straightforward choice on Independence or the Union in completely non partisan language put the Union and
Independence neck in neck at around 40% support each which is probably close to the mark.
Posted by: David McEwan Hill | May 01, 2008 at 12:41
I should add that the Telegraph insulting the intelligence of its readers - as it has done to those in Scotland who take it - is a sorry sight.
Posted by: David McEwan Hill | May 01, 2008 at 12:44
How long does the Party have to put up with David Mundell? The charge sheet grows longer by the day:
1. Author of a leaked memo criticising Party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, which caused huge adverse publicity for the Party on the eve of last year's Scottish Conference (as to the contents of this, the words 'Pot, kettle and black' spring to mind)
2. Chairman of the Scottish Candidates' Board responsible for the introduction of the deeply flawed 'priority list' process, which caused resignations of long-standing Party members and considerable ill-feeling with constituencies.
3. Failure as the interim Scottish Party Chairman. Lack of any man-management skills and accusations of a dictatorial attitude.
4. Member of Scottish party staff currently under police investigation after £150,000 disappeared from party Funds. Where were the financial controls?
5. Now interfering in an internal Party election. The only loser from this will be George Kynoch for whom Mundell's endorsement is the equivalnet of the black spot as far as grassroots members are concerned.
The nightmare scenario is that we win the GE but with Mundell as the only Scottish MP, in which case he is guaranteed a seat in cabinet as Scottish Secretary. Senior Scottish Tories have told DC privately that if this happens there will be mass resignations!
Posted by: Boy Blue | May 01, 2008 at 12:55
Annabel Goldie is re building the Party that Bill Walker enervated to the point of collapse in the 1990s.
Bill Walker should retire as should Nicholas Winteron - his fellow Monday Clubber and Maastricht Rebel.
Posted by: Bill Brinsmead | May 01, 2008 at 12:56
Not like Mundell to be up to some kind of behind the scenes interference. I'd have thought he might have learned his lesson after his leaked memo fiasco and just got on with his job as an MP
Posted by: storm | May 01, 2008 at 12:58
There were some better results in Scotland in May 2007, and the polls tend to under-estimate us there because it's a difficult country/region to poll.
Annabel Goldie has done a good job turning things round. The Tories matter again.
With careful targets, we can win more seats there.
Posted by: Joe James Broughton | May 01, 2008 at 13:22
While we are on national identities, here’s a story:
Last night on BBC’s One Show (Barb audience at 4.85 Million) broadcast a piece called:
‘We want to be Welsh’. This was supposedly about the English Cheshire village of Audlem voting to become part of Wales. Most amusingly (not) this vote was largely based upon the availability of free prescriptions in Wales.
Go to Audlem’s website and you discover that the story was complete tosh. The ‘poll’ was released on April 1st and was a spoof:
‘Many will be wondering how an April Fool story on a village website has made headlines in many parts of the world in the past week. Because that’s just what's happened to Audlem Online’s 1st April story about the village applying to join Wales.’
‘There is, of course, a serious issue here, and one which the politicians might want to consider. There is a perception in England that despite paying the same taxes, the Welsh, and even more the Scots, are getting a better deal out of their Assembly and Parliament. Nobody seems to represent the English – the Welsh and Scots decide their own affairs yet their MPs can also vote on exclusively English issues – such as splitting Cheshire in two. Devolution seems to many a one-way process.’
And yet. The BBC Nations and Regions completely failed to state that the entire piece was based upon a joke:
‘It must be said straightaway the idea was always a spoof as there was, and is, no intention of ever being other than an English village’ http://www.audlem.org/
BBC? Nation Shall Speak Truth Unto Nation?
Posted by: englandism | May 01, 2008 at 13:42
The SNP having in Scotland been among the chief elements in Scotland relying on the protest vote over the years, now that they do have some power may have lost some of their novelty to many.
Important to bare in mind that in Scotland, Labour frequently has jitters in between General Elections - Jim Sillars being elected to Govern for example in 1988, it was close run in John Smith's seat when the by-election was held in 1994 as well, it's just over a year until the General Election and in all likliehood shares of the vote in Scotland next time won't be much different, in most cases people in Scotland want more devolution rather than to become seperate members of the Commonwealth.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 01, 2008 at 13:52
Odd that the graphic of Scotland seems to cut out the Borders, Galloway, the west and north of Scotland, the Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland and Outer Hebridies - although given that Scotland is now dominated by a lowland elite I suppose it is quite appropriate really; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all need more devolution to Local Government. Just as England needs more devolution generally.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 01, 2008 at 13:56
"BBC? Nation Shall Speak Truth Unto Nation?"
Not with the BBC especially England, for some time ago I challenged the BBC on its representation of English issues, noting that while they had a BBC Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, even a racist apartheid Asian Network, yet no BBC England. For some reason they sent me back the BBC's document... 'Devolution The BBC's program response' here it laid out all the money and efforts they were going to to give Scotland and Wales a national representation in their news and issues, mentioning Scotland some 75 times in the report. England it didn't mention once, NOT once, and in a regional context three times!
Posted by: Iain | May 01, 2008 at 14:10
Repeating my post on yesterday's general thread:
Yougov poll for the Telegraph
http://www.yougov.com/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/08%2004%2028%20scotland%20topline.pdf
Includes:
"Does the fact that David Cameron is now leader of the UK Conservative Party
make you more likely or less likely to vote for the Conservatives in a UK
GENERAL election or does it not make any difference?
More likely 13
Less likely 14
No difference – I would vote Conservative anyway 11
No difference – I would NOT vote Conservative anyway 53
Not sure 9"
"Does the fact that Mr Cameron is now leader of the UK Conservative Party make
you more likely or less likely to vote for the Conservatives in a SCOTTISH
PARLIAMENT election or does it not make any difference?
More likely 5
Less likely 12
No difference – I would vote Conservative anyway 12
No difference – I would NOT vote Conservative anyway 60
Not sure 11"
But never mind,Tories, keep spitting into the wind by trying to placate an unappreciative minority in Scotland, at the risk of further alienating the majority population of disenfranchised England.
Also, has any poll offered an option in favour of abolishing the Scottish Parliament, i.e. reinstating the Union? I gather that there is more than one Scot who does not approve of this incremental distancing from the UK.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | May 01, 2008 at 14:24
"Also, has any poll offered an option in favour of abolishing the Scottish Parliament, i.e. reinstating the Union? I gather that there is more than one Scot who does not approve of this incremental distancing from the UK."
It would be interesting to see what the result of that would be.
After all, in the 1998 referendum on the Scottish Parliament, a majority of Scots eligible to vote either voted 'No' or stayed at home.
Posted by: David | May 01, 2008 at 14:59
I seem to recall a recent poll had support for abolition of the Scottish parliament at 6%.
Posted by: Boy Blue | May 01, 2008 at 15:03
Iain wrote:
"The best news of all appears to be declining support for independence."
Is that good news? For with the complete failure of British political parties to give the proper representation to English people, as we have see with Ken Clarkes limp and lame response to the West Lothian Question, the only hope we had was for the Scots to go for independence."
We're Unionists on this site Iain - that'sc why it's good news!
:-)
Although we also want to reform the Union with English votes for English laws or some version of it and a radical pruning of the subsidy to Scotland.
Posted by: Editor | May 01, 2008 at 16:00
"We're Unionists on this site Iain - that'sc why it's good news!"
Well then I am out of place ( which in part is why I let my membership to the Conservative party expire) for unlike your average Union member I'm not a blind follower of it. For me it has to do the job its supposed to. Clearly here it doesn’t, for if it can't defend our interests, it can't even control our own borders . It capitulates and sells out our sovereignty at the fist demands from the EU bureaucrats, and can't even offer its citizens equality, in fact relies on inequality for its continued existence with English people constitutionally second class citizens. Then for me the Union is a washed up relic from bygone age. Of course I could be surprised if our so called representatives in Westminster could find some backbone and values, tell the EU to keep their noses out of our business, restructure the Union around a federal structure giving English people equality with their own Parliament, then it might give the Union a new lease of life. But as I see no evidence of this foresight in any of the British political parties, and we get pathetic responses to the issues from the likes of Ken Clarke, then one can only come to the conclusion that the Union is finished, it just hasn’t dawned on them yet, for Westminster village seems to be too stupid to realise it
Posted by: Iain | May 01, 2008 at 16:41
Marvellously ignorant remark from the Editor (no less)about reforming the Union with EVOEM "or some version of it".
EVOEM in the British parliament is likely to kill the Union not save it. This is because it is the BRITISH parliament we are talking about and to set up a major sub comittee and thus exclude members with non English seats from most of the work of that parliament is a recipe for division.
Far better and more ameliorative to set up an entirely separate paliament for England --just like the British parliament did for Scotland. The United Kingdom will then finally become a symmetrical family of national parilaments with an overarching British parliament.
Thats only if you want to save the British Union of course!
Posted by: Jake | May 01, 2008 at 16:48
Editor | May 01, 16:00
"..We're Unionists on this site.."
So am I, by instinct and tradition. but you cannot ".. reform the Union with English votes for English laws or some version of it and a radical pruning of the subsidy to Scotland." as there is currently no Union to reform. Leaving aside the monarchical aspects, the Union was of English and Scottish Parliaments to become one parliament. There is now once again a Scottish Parliament but not a reconstituted English one and nothing less will do in the present circumstances.
Now, if there was a movement to re-form the UK with one parliament then I'd be very much for it, though it does not seem that many would support such an idea.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | May 01, 2008 at 16:54
Blue Boy has hit the nail on the head – How much longer does Mundell’s charge sheet have to get before the leader is forced to act? In addition to the lobbying highlighted in the Telegraph piece my sources tell me that his office emailed at least one prominent Scottish Tory Peer - more or less ordering him to telephone his constituency chairman and request that he wrote to his membership to endorse Kynoch. The response apparently (after the expletives were deleted) was to the effect that no one would even remember who Kynoch was never mind would vote for or endorse him.
Contrary to the suggestion that Bill Walker has been a sometime critic of Project Cameron, in my experience quite the reverse is the truth. Walker has gone out of his way to win round skeptics (like myself) to Project Cameron. He has been quick to exhibit personal correspondence from the Leader complimenting him on his efforts to keep the party united whilst deputy chairman, and underlining the high regard which Cameron has for him. Having seen these letters there is no doubting the fact that Walker has Cameron’s confidence.
What then one might ask is Mundell’s motive in personally promoting Kynoch’s campaign? The answer surely must lie in the Telegraph’s assertion that it is his addiction micro management. After the fiasco of the pre conference leak last year it has been all too clear to many of the foot soldiers that Mundell was on a mission to emaciate the entire voluntary side by substituting his own placemen wherever possible. Having had Andrew Fulton imposed upon him as Party Chairman it seems clear to me that the plan is now to install Kynoch as his eyes and ears at the centre. Amusingly rumour has it that Kynoch had hastily to rejoin the party when he was approached about standing – such has been his detachment since the electors of Aberdeen and Kincardine sent him packing in 97.
Walker may be getting on in years but he is nothing if not his own man, and a man of principle. What the membership need is someone who is prepared to stand up for them at the highest level in the party and capable of telling as it is, not how the leadership would like to hear it. Most of all what the membership does not need is to be micro managed by Mundell or anyone else for that matter.
This election is the bi- annual opportunity for the party members to put someone in a position of authority and influence who will represent them, and stick up for their point of view, not merely follow someone else’s pre-determined agenda. Its time the membership sent a message to Mr. Mundell that enough is enough.
Posted by: Huntarian | May 01, 2008 at 17:27
Editor | May 01, 16:00
"..We're Unionists on this site.."
Yes, me too.
The usual insinuation is that the demand for an English parliament threatens the union uniquely in the way that the variants in Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont do not.
This is founded upon England being too big and too influential. Could we say that the urban Central Belt of Scotland is equally dominant over the rural Highlands and Lowlands or that Cardiff is remote from the majority of the Welsh speaking population?
Is the assumption that an English parliament would seek to disadvantage the other nations?
When the self-evident, unrelenting, disadvantage is actually, right here, right now, directed against the people of England if not by intent then by unintended consequence.
As others have suggested, grand committees and other equally as convoluted palliatives offer no real cure and would only serve to make the problem worse and yet the obfuscation continues.
An English parliament within the context of a federal union is inevitable.
Posted by: englandism | May 01, 2008 at 17:29
"Now, if there was a movement to re-form the UK with one parliament then I'd be very much for it "
Yes, I believe I made more effort to defend the Union than the Conservative party could muster in the devolution debate/referendum. I believe the best Michael Anchram ( who was Constitutional spokesman at the time ) could come up with during the debates was that devolution would cause 'structural imbalances', a real killer argument which would resonate with the electorate! NOT! As such its not surprising the referenda were lost with that sort of passionate defence of the Union. In the intervening decade the Conservatives have made no argument for the Union, and their defence of it now relies on denying English people equality, which cannot be seen as any sort of argument for the Union, quite the reverse.
Posted by: Iain | May 01, 2008 at 17:30
No remarks about the allegedly sex mad Lord Laidlaw who has been importing prostitutes, tranvestites and other perverts to his home on the French Riviera while almost single-handedly funding the Tory Party in Scotland while poor David Mundell gets pelters. Funny old world.
Posted by: David McEwan Hill | May 01, 2008 at 23:33