General
Monday, 07 May 2012 08:37
138 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter 
The final breakdown of results from Scotland’s local authority elections has confirmed the SNP as the most popular party nationwide.
Detailed analysis published by the SNP confirms that, for the first time in its history in a local government election, the party outpolled all others in terms of first preference votes.
Last Thursday’s showing was an improvement from 2007, where despite winning more seats than Labour, the SNP were behind in the vote count.
In Thursday’s election however the SNP overtook Labour in gains and number of councillors and crucially increased its vote share to 32.32%, with Labour behind on 31.39%.
This represents a 4.46% increase on the SNP’s 2007 performance, against a Labour vote rise of 3.24%. The figures also show the Tory vote fell by 2.26% and the Lib Dem vote was down by 6.10%.
In addition, the SNP was the party with the most first preference votes in 16 councils, compared to 14 for Labour. The increase in vote share was accompanied by a doubling of the SNP’s lead in seats over Labour, from 15 in 2007 to 30 this year.
The analysis also revealed that the number of SNP council seats increased by 62, and not 61 as previously thought. The SNP won 424 seats – an increase of 17%. Labour increased their number of councillors by 46 to 394 – a 13% increase.
However it has also emerged that the system adopted by the BBC to calculate party gains in Scotland may have broken the broadcaster's own election guidelines.
SNP Campaign Director Derek Mackay said:
“This was a triple success for the SNP – more votes, more councillors, and more gains than any other party, which means that with over half-a-million votes we are in an even stronger position to represent and deliver for local people.
“There can be no doubt about who the winner was in this election - the SNP have now won four out of the last five national elections in Scotland – and we also beat Labour in terms of the increase in votes and increase in number of councillors.
“For a party to achieve this five years into government is truly remarkable, and stands in stark contrast to the hammering that the coalition parties suffered north and south of the Border - only two years into their administration.
“The Lib Dems performed disastrously – but so too did the Tories, whose vote fell back in Scotland even from their low water mark of 2007.
“Labour may have gained 13% more seats in Scotland – compared to the SNP’s 17% increase – but their performance north of the Border was nothing like that in England, where they increased their number of seats by 82%. It’s not just a tale of two governments – it’s also a tale of two oppositions as well.
“SNP Council groups all over Scotland will now work with others and with the Scottish Government to deliver the progressive policies that we all want to see.”
The confirmation of a 62 seat gain is not accepted by the BBC in Scotland who continue to insist that the SNP gained only 57 seats, one less than Labour who the broadcaster claims won an extra 58.
However the methodology used by the broadcaster, where it ignored the 2007 election results, has been challenged by many observers.
It has also emerged that the system employed by the BBC is at odds with the broadcaster’s own guidelines published in April of this year.
According to the BBC online guideline called for ‘A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012’, a gain is defined as: "If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general[sic] election this is described as a ‘gain’".
Many of the gains attributed to the Labour party were in fact seats they won at the previous election in 2007 and, according to the guidelines, should not have been counted as gains but as holds.
Although the term ‘general election’ is used, the ‘Vote 2012’ headline and the April timestamp suggests that this was in fact aimed at explaining this year’s local elections, which were indeed described as 'Vote 2012'.
Other news outlets appear to have been confused by BBC Scotland’s figures. The Scotsman newspaper has also reported the BBC figure of 57 SNP gains, and claims it as being “compared with 2007.” However, a straight comparison with 2007 gives a figure of 62.
The row over the actual figure will rumble on, but questions will surely now be asked as to why the BBC appears to have ignored its own election guidelines when calculating election gains for the 2012 Scottish local elections.
According to figures released by the SNP, the final results of all first preference votes are as follows:
- SNP - 502,201 - 32.32% (+4.46% on 2007)
- Lab - 487,884 - 31.39% (+3.24%)
- Con - 206,856 - 13.31% (-2.26%)
- LD - 102,399 - 6.59% (-6.10%)
- Grn - 34,252 - 2.20% (+0.16%)
- Ind - 184,329 - 11.86% (+0.98%)
- Oth - 36,055 - 2.32% (+0.9%)
The final tally for councillors is:
- Scottish National Party – 424 (+62)
- Labour Party – 394 (+46)
- Conservative Party – 115 (-29)
- Liberal Democrats – 71 (-95)
- Green – 14 (+6)
- Ind – 194 (+12)
- Oth – 8 (-3)
[Newsnet Scotland is currently experiencing some difficulties with our twitter account. We would be grateful if readers who are on twitter would click the re-tweet button beneath each article. Thank You]
Comments
#
2012-05-07 17:24
Gerry Hassan has intelligent comment re the Glasgow result at
gerryhassan.com/.../...
gerryhassan.com/.../...
#
2012-05-07 09:54
This continuing distortion by BBC Scotland should be raised at Holyrood so that the media have no choice but to report it.
#
2012-05-07 09:54
This nails BBC Scotlsnd. This is deiberate sophistry at best, and cynical lies at worst.
#
2012-05-07 09:55
Is it time for a legal challenge from Joe Public to the BBC?
Is it BBC, as the broadcaster, or the BBC Trust which is at fault?
The BBC has a Charter which is being breached, but complaints have to be made to the BBC Trust and this BBC Trust is not meeting the spirit or intent of the BBC Charter.
The complaints process has been followed on a huge amount of times by disgruntled BBC licence holders, but, to no avail and breaches to the BBC Charter continue.
Since this process has clearly been taken to the final stage through the BBC Trust and this has proven to be unsatisfactory, is it now time to escalate the matter to a legal stage?
Is it BBC, as the broadcaster, or the BBC Trust which is at fault?
The BBC has a Charter which is being breached, but complaints have to be made to the BBC Trust and this BBC Trust is not meeting the spirit or intent of the BBC Charter.
The complaints process has been followed on a huge amount of times by disgruntled BBC licence holders, but, to no avail and breaches to the BBC Charter continue.
Since this process has clearly been taken to the final stage through the BBC Trust and this has proven to be unsatisfactory, is it now time to escalate the matter to a legal stage?
#
2012-05-07 10:17
And inexplicably, only the monopoly public broadcaster BBC of all TV companies is explicitly excluded from the surveillance of Ofcom, leaving its captive consumers with only an internal complaints service.
A situation quite unusual in the UK, I would think, where consumers are better protected than in many other countries.
A situation quite unusual in the UK, I would think, where consumers are better protected than in many other countries.
#
2012-05-07 10:20
Surely there must at the very least be a legal angle regarding the fact that the BBC is exempt from the regulation of OFCOM?
Surely that exemption is challengeable in law??
Add to that the simple fact that the chairman, and the other members of the BBC trust, are appointed by the Queen and David Cameron, and it all looks very suspect. How can a political appointee ever ensure political impartiality??
Surely that exemption is challengeable in law??
Add to that the simple fact that the chairman, and the other members of the BBC trust, are appointed by the Queen and David Cameron, and it all looks very suspect. How can a political appointee ever ensure political impartiality??
#
2012-05-07 11:02
Especially when the BBC explicitly seems to say that the end of its procedure is the banning of the complainant, not offering any reference to an outside ombudsman.
#
2012-05-07 13:31
I'm afraid Robert that Ofcom does have some limited powers over the BBC.
Where Ofcom finds a breach of the privacy or fairness sections of its Code, it may require the BBC to broadcast a statement of its findings. Where Ofcom considers that the Code has been breached "seriously, deliberately, repeatedly, or recklessly", it can impose sanctions, which range from a requirement to broadcast a correction or statement of finding to a fine of no more than £250,000.
So the MAXIMUM penalty to the BBC is being forced to apologise and pay out NO MORE THAN £250k per offence.
It doesnt really act as a stopper on their activities, afterall they risk losing £320 MILLION A YEAR from their budget if Scotland decides it doesnt want the BBC on Independence.
Even if they got fined EVERY DAY for a year they would still only be fined £91,250,000.
That still leaves them with the other £228,750,000 of the licence fee.
Where Ofcom finds a breach of the privacy or fairness sections of its Code, it may require the BBC to broadcast a statement of its findings. Where Ofcom considers that the Code has been breached "seriously, deliberately, repeatedly, or recklessly", it can impose sanctions, which range from a requirement to broadcast a correction or statement of finding to a fine of no more than £250,000.
So the MAXIMUM penalty to the BBC is being forced to apologise and pay out NO MORE THAN £250k per offence.
It doesnt really act as a stopper on their activities, afterall they risk losing £320 MILLION A YEAR from their budget if Scotland decides it doesnt want the BBC on Independence.
Even if they got fined EVERY DAY for a year they would still only be fined £91,250,000.
That still leaves them with the other £228,750,000 of the licence fee.
#
2012-05-07 10:17
Its probably because its an article about the relationship between the SNP and the BBC.
#
2012-05-07 10:23
Quoting gfaetheblock:
Unlike on the BBC website (Scotland) this forum is OPEN to anyone who wishes to comment so quote away to your hearts content.
In the interest of balance, why is their only quotes from SNP in this article?
Unlike on the BBC website (Scotland) this forum is OPEN to anyone who wishes to comment so quote away to your hearts content.
#
2012-05-07 11:25
Quoting gfaetheblock:
In the interest of balance, why is their only quotes from SNP in this article?The BBCs unique coverage of Scotland`s election is in line with their unique policy of not allowing comments on their blogs,whereas the rest of the UK gets bog standard normality,we are blessed with a unique editorial approach,we are special!
#
2012-05-07 10:05
I don't understand why, with all the evidence now available the SG doesn't challenge the BBC on this. Surely nothing to lose by a challenge and lots to gain?
#
2012-05-07 10:21
They would say they chose a different methodology to improve our understanding of the results or some such nonsense.
The news then for the following week will claim the SNP are quibbling over terminology when they should be concentrating on the economy.
The news then for the following week will claim the SNP are quibbling over terminology when they should be concentrating on the economy.
#
2012-05-07 18:59
pm- whats your take on the elections ? you must be pleased with the 'green' vote, and the news that midlothian has a new council with green/indy/snp leaders.
#
2012-05-08 04:53
Not if there are call from individuals or organizations outwith the SNP and the Scottish Government.
The emphasis should be on what this and other incidents say about the BBC's adherence to its charter, and whether these instances evince a systemic political bias.
Has the BBC had extra curricular dealings with political parties? Has any public money been spent in furtherance of the interests of any political party or political lobby?
These sort of very troublesome questions are best addressed by an independent inquiry.
The emphasis should be on what this and other incidents say about the BBC's adherence to its charter, and whether these instances evince a systemic political bias.
Has the BBC had extra curricular dealings with political parties? Has any public money been spent in furtherance of the interests of any political party or political lobby?
These sort of very troublesome questions are best addressed by an independent inquiry.
#
2012-05-07 10:23
Its interesting that the figures given of being 1% ahead of SLab is the same amount that was indicated on the Friday night TV show by the SNP spokesperson, and which were roundly ridiculed and caused much merryment between Joanne, Ruth and the BBCs own presenter as being 'the SNPs own figures' and were roundly condemmed as nonesense when they managed to stop laughing and interupting.
If I remember correctly the figures were 33/32 with the proviso that there were a few still to be declaired and the figures could fluctuate slightly. With the official figures showing the same margins but both within 1% and in the correct order is fairly good accurate analysis.
I wonder if anyone has asked the oths on the show about their reactions now that the figures are accurate and official?
It is also surprising that the SNP party machine can get figures from results, cumpute scores, averages and swings quicker than a public organisation with vastly more public funds than is available to SNP. Wonder if the BBC want to hire the software or data analysists for the next election or referendum?
If I remember correctly the figures were 33/32 with the proviso that there were a few still to be declaired and the figures could fluctuate slightly. With the official figures showing the same margins but both within 1% and in the correct order is fairly good accurate analysis.
I wonder if anyone has asked the oths on the show about their reactions now that the figures are accurate and official?
It is also surprising that the SNP party machine can get figures from results, cumpute scores, averages and swings quicker than a public organisation with vastly more public funds than is available to SNP. Wonder if the BBC want to hire the software or data analysists for the next election or referendum?
#
2012-05-07 11:52
"Its interesting that the figures given of being 1% ahead of SLab is the same amount that was indicated on the Friday night TV show by the SNP spokesperson, and which were roundly ridiculed and caused much merryment between Joanne, Ruth and the BBCs own presenter as being 'the SNPs own figures' and were roundly condemmed as nonesense when they managed to stop laughing and interupting."
I watched that programme,and the mutual laughing between Lamont and Davidson-----felt relieved that two Unionists of different parties had allowed their anti-SNP mask slip publicly and on TV.
Labour and Tory coalition---Spot the difference?
Mutual enemy---the SNP.
All was revealed last Friday night.
Now we know.Thanks for that.
I watched that programme,and the mutual laughing between Lamont and Davidson-----felt relieved that two Unionists of different parties had allowed their anti-SNP mask slip publicly and on TV.
Labour and Tory coalition---Spot the difference?
Mutual enemy---the SNP.
All was revealed last Friday night.
Now we know.Thanks for that.
#
2012-05-07 15:51
Sorry NSB I misread that, "oths". I thought you had typed oafs - which would have been a tad nearer the mark.
#
2012-05-07 10:25
I know this is a bit O/T but I thought you would like to know.
Fastest defector yet ditches Lib Dems day after election
A Highland Liberal Democrat councillor is believed to have made history as the fastest political defector.
Defected to the Independents
Even a phone call from Rennie could not change her mind she says,tells you a lot about the Libs.I say she should have done it before the election but then again she might have been defeated.
Fastest defector yet ditches Lib Dems day after election
A Highland Liberal Democrat councillor is believed to have made history as the fastest political defector.
Defected to the Independents
Even a phone call from Rennie could not change her mind she says,tells you a lot about the Libs.I say she should have done it before the election but then again she might have been defeated.
#
2012-05-07 10:25
When people spoke of the transition period after a Yes vote in an independence referendum potentially taking years I didn't realise it would be because the BBC would be telling Scots they had in fact voted No for as long as they could get away with it.
If they were running French TV the headlines would be " Arrogant Hollande seeks to govern with only 52% of vote".
Now we know there are results and BBC results.
If they were running French TV the headlines would be " Arrogant Hollande seeks to govern with only 52% of vote".
Now we know there are results and BBC results.
#
2012-05-07 10:31
It's like a breath of fresh air seeing factual election results here.
The BBC as far, as I know, have neither corrected their mistake nor explained their arithmatic. Todays Scotsman and others continue to report known incorrect and missleading nos. and %ges.
That is only to be expected I suppose.
The BBC as far, as I know, have neither corrected their mistake nor explained their arithmatic. Todays Scotsman and others continue to report known incorrect and missleading nos. and %ges.
That is only to be expected I suppose.
#
2012-05-07 10:39
The complaints procedure is not the way to handle this. Think a tad further out of the box.
From this and other practices evincing systematic political bias, there is clearly a prima facie case for a formal independent inquiry into this apparent non-adherence to the BBC's own rules.
There is also the specter of the possible use of public money to aid the campaign of a political party. By this I don't me donations, but help in setting political agendas, seeding accusations about political opponents, and cooperation in the creation of memes that promote one party or political view at the expense of another.
If such activities involved harnessing the resources of the BBC in the prosecution of partisan political goals, then public money was indeed used, and used illegally. in that event the inquiry need be one with subpoena power and testimony taken under oath.
With respect to bending the rules to favor a political cause or party, ultimately it is individuals who make these decisions. The question is which individuals made the decision to ignore BBC's own best practices and why?
Is there a narrative in their background that may evince bias? Have there been discussions of meetings, formally or informally with any political party or agents of political parties?
It seems clear that the evidence is that there may be a problem at the BBC that is affecting directly, the electoral process. The accurate dissemination of the outcome of elections is as important as the integrity of the election process itself.
Again we come back to this issue of the BBC'c power to influence opinion. That power is based on the belief abroad in the public space, that the state broadcaster is impartial and that its political analyses can be trusted.
That is the power that has to be examined. It is not necessary to prove malfeasance on the part of the BBC. It is only necessary to demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests political bias exists.
Breaking the political power of the BBC means drawing the public's attention to that truth. An inquiry is a vehicle by which that message may be conveyed efficiently to the electorate.
To labor the point: it is not necessary to prove anything, it is only necessary to cast reasonable doubt on the veracity and integrity of BBC news and political analyses.
If corruption should be found and wrong doing can be proved, well then, sobeit.
From this and other practices evincing systematic political bias, there is clearly a prima facie case for a formal independent inquiry into this apparent non-adherence to the BBC's own rules.
There is also the specter of the possible use of public money to aid the campaign of a political party. By this I don't me donations, but help in setting political agendas, seeding accusations about political opponents, and cooperation in the creation of memes that promote one party or political view at the expense of another.
If such activities involved harnessing the resources of the BBC in the prosecution of partisan political goals, then public money was indeed used, and used illegally. in that event the inquiry need be one with subpoena power and testimony taken under oath.
With respect to bending the rules to favor a political cause or party, ultimately it is individuals who make these decisions. The question is which individuals made the decision to ignore BBC's own best practices and why?
Is there a narrative in their background that may evince bias? Have there been discussions of meetings, formally or informally with any political party or agents of political parties?
It seems clear that the evidence is that there may be a problem at the BBC that is affecting directly, the electoral process. The accurate dissemination of the outcome of elections is as important as the integrity of the election process itself.
Again we come back to this issue of the BBC'c power to influence opinion. That power is based on the belief abroad in the public space, that the state broadcaster is impartial and that its political analyses can be trusted.
That is the power that has to be examined. It is not necessary to prove malfeasance on the part of the BBC. It is only necessary to demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests political bias exists.
Breaking the political power of the BBC means drawing the public's attention to that truth. An inquiry is a vehicle by which that message may be conveyed efficiently to the electorate.
To labor the point: it is not necessary to prove anything, it is only necessary to cast reasonable doubt on the veracity and integrity of BBC news and political analyses.
If corruption should be found and wrong doing can be proved, well then, sobeit.
#
2012-05-07 10:55
OT, but another part of the Catalan press corrects what was published the other day and interestingly, unlike the BBC, gets the figures right! Could be a translation of the Newsnet article, I haven't checked:
directe.cat/.../...
One commentator even gives the Newsnet link to the previous article on this subject, so you are well read! Another points out that only 1/5 of the Scottish population lives in the 2 main cities (suppose this is true).
Google translate of the article (touched up a bit, especially where it translates "independentisme " as "separatism"!
-------------------
Independence wins in Scotland
The SNP wins in local elections. The SNP has no plan B, its goal is independence
_______________ _______________ __________
Scotland speaks loudly: it wants independence. This is the clear reaction of the Scottish people at the polls during the municipal elections. The Scottish independence party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), led by Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has won the municipal elections. The SNP has not only maintained its lead, but also improved its results. It obtained 424 councilors, which represents an increase of 61 councilors in total.
However, the SNP could not win in Glasgow, where Labour were victorious. In Edinburgh, the Scottish capital, Labour also won, leaving two councilors difference with the second power, the SNP. But despite not having won in the major cities, the independentists have achieved an absolute majority in Dundee and Angus.
The second force was the Labour Party, which has risen in England and Wales. And the party that came off worst was the Conservative Party, reducing its number of councilors.
26910 reads
directe.cat/.../...
One commentator even gives the Newsnet link to the previous article on this subject, so you are well read! Another points out that only 1/5 of the Scottish population lives in the 2 main cities (suppose this is true).
Google translate of the article (touched up a bit, especially where it translates "independentisme " as "separatism"!
-------------------
Independence wins in Scotland
The SNP wins in local elections. The SNP has no plan B, its goal is independence
_______________ _______________ __________
Scotland speaks loudly: it wants independence. This is the clear reaction of the Scottish people at the polls during the municipal elections. The Scottish independence party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), led by Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has won the municipal elections. The SNP has not only maintained its lead, but also improved its results. It obtained 424 councilors, which represents an increase of 61 councilors in total.
However, the SNP could not win in Glasgow, where Labour were victorious. In Edinburgh, the Scottish capital, Labour also won, leaving two councilors difference with the second power, the SNP. But despite not having won in the major cities, the independentists have achieved an absolute majority in Dundee and Angus.
The second force was the Labour Party, which has risen in England and Wales. And the party that came off worst was the Conservative Party, reducing its number of councilors.
26910 reads
#
2012-05-07 11:11
glad Scotland was correctly reported , however not being a Spanish speaker I found the comments section somewhat confusingand assume it was Google translation which left me bemused!
#
2012-05-07 11:19
Don't worry, Diabloandco, the comments were actually in Catalan, not so easy as Spanish, as is most of the Catalanist press, curious but logical language split.
#
2012-05-07 11:10
Interesting comments from former Tory MSP Brian Montieth re the election of independence-supporting Tory Peter de Vink:
scotsman.com/.../...
I remember canvassing for the SNP many moons ago and being told by a Labour supporter that "the Labour Party will give Scotland its freedom". There must be many voters for the so-called "Unionist" parties who actually support independence for Scotland (I would bet a far greater proportion than SNP voters who don't support independence).
scotsman.com/.../...
I remember canvassing for the SNP many moons ago and being told by a Labour supporter that "the Labour Party will give Scotland its freedom". There must be many voters for the so-called "Unionist" parties who actually support independence for Scotland (I would bet a far greater proportion than SNP voters who don't support independence).
#
2012-05-07 13:39
So Murdo was right and Ruth was wrong ! Maybe there should be a Scottish Conservative Independence Party (SCIP) ..erm maybe with a different name.
#
2012-05-07 11:19
I've started looking into the figures and the results actually look just like May 11. On election day, I kept saying this, but then as the number of independent candidates returned kept climbing, so the SNP share started dropping relative to May 11. And here lies the key... if you look where the independents are most concentrated (e.g. Higlands, Western Isles etc), that is where the SNP got great vote shares (often close to 50% or more) at Holyrood but lost to indepedents at council level (rural areas commonly going for independents at council level traditionally). Ergo, my preliminary conclusion - as I hinted before the election - is that overall the SNP share is similar to May 11 nationally. However, lots of people who voted SNP at national level voted for independents at council level as they always have, meaning the total SNP share was lower than May 11 by a large margin.
The classic example is Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
May 11 = 65% SNP
May 12 = 67% Independents, 23% SNP
Even with that there was a shift to the SNP. This pattern only applies significantly to the SNP as we see here (first preference / constituency):
Party 2011 2012 change
SNP 45.4 32.3 -13.1
Lab 31.7 31.4 -0.3
Con 13.9 13.3 -0.6
Lib 7.9 6.6 -1.3
Indy 0.6 11.9 +11.3
The vote shares for the 3 unionist parties have hardly changed, yet the SNP are well down at the expense of the independents. Add in the 'others' share and it all balances out nicely.So in that sense the SNP are doing just as well nationally as they did in May 11, which would tie in with poll data.
EDIT. I've graphed this up and its clear as day. Will upload when I get a chance. SNP national share should be identical to May 11 at worst right now. The 'independents' voters in council elections are on balance all SNP voters at national level.
The classic example is Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
May 11 = 65% SNP
May 12 = 67% Independents, 23% SNP
Even with that there was a shift to the SNP. This pattern only applies significantly to the SNP as we see here (first preference / constituency):
Party 2011 2012 change
SNP 45.4 32.3 -13.1
Lab 31.7 31.4 -0.3
Con 13.9 13.3 -0.6
Lib 7.9 6.6 -1.3
Indy 0.6 11.9 +11.3
The vote shares for the 3 unionist parties have hardly changed, yet the SNP are well down at the expense of the independents. Add in the 'others' share and it all balances out nicely.So in that sense the SNP are doing just as well nationally as they did in May 11, which would tie in with poll data.
EDIT. I've graphed this up and its clear as day. Will upload when I get a chance. SNP national share should be identical to May 11 at worst right now. The 'independents' voters in council elections are on balance all SNP voters at national level.
#
2012-05-07 13:52
Note to self - Never play cards with skier. :)
Great work SS, certainly adds a bit more perspective.
Great work SS, certainly adds a bit more perspective.
#
2012-05-07 14:27
Great work SS. I think the Green vote also had a lot to do with the % difference between 2011 and 2012, as although the Greens stood on the list in 2011, they didn't stand in a single constituency (AFAIK) and of course the 2011 race was seen as an SNP/Labour battle, whereas with STV and a focus on local rather than national issues the Greens gained very substantial numbers of votes where they stood. Of course the Green vote wasn't necessarily entirely an SNP Holyrood one but you'd have to think that, with it being a pro independence party, the majority of their 2012 1st preference voters would be SNP Holyrood voters. Both this and the independent vote were factors in 2007, when, although the campaign was largely on a national level, the SNP still polled around 5% lower in the council elections than on the Holyrood constituency vote. Local recognition is probably another key factor, if a bit less tangible, and this created a degree of electoral inertia where popular labour or lib dem councillors hung on purely on their personality where an SNP challenger was less well known. This probably also goes a way to explaining why Lib Dem losses were more limited in historic areas of strength and greater in regions where they hadn't held councillors before 2007.
#
2012-05-07 16:57
You are correct about the greens - I'd say a lot of Green voters voted SNP-green at Holyrood simply because there were no Green candidates standing in constituencies.
Regarding my above post, all graphed up and I shall post it in this thread later today. Very clear pattern and all good for the SNP/greens/SSP etc...
Regarding my above post, all graphed up and I shall post it in this thread later today. Very clear pattern and all good for the SNP/greens/SSP etc...
#
2012-05-07 17:45
Good stuff, always interesting to see your statistical analysis of elections. This is LomondSnowstorm from the forum by the way :)
#
2012-05-07 12:28
Probably not. If no results are made public to the media, YouGov don't have to put it on their website.
#
2012-05-07 11:45
From their own words (website) are the BBC condemned...
HOLD :If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
GAIN: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
bbc.co.uk/.../...
They must be taken to task on this one.
HOLD :If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
GAIN: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
bbc.co.uk/.../...
They must be taken to task on this one.
#
2012-05-07 12:10
British Broadcasting Corporation Scotland Branch have broken the rules.
Correction and apology for political bias must be issued immediately by Joe Publics' network.
Pronto----we pay---get on with it before the day's out.
Correction and apology for political bias must be issued immediately by Joe Publics' network.
Pronto----we pay---get on with it before the day's out.
#
2012-05-07 11:47
Good article, but pity it didn't link to the source of the image - bbc.co.uk/.../.... That's one page which we should all give as many "hits" as possible to ensure they know they can't amend it and retrospectively change the date stamp - Currently still: 20 April 2012 Last updated at 12:02.
Their one conceivable out is that an "All-out election" is not a "General election", but even that would be pretty shaky as their definition of General election ignores the Scotland Act 1998 which refers to general elections for Scotland, and May 2011 was correctly treated as a general election.
Knowing that complaints to the BBC are useless, others may wish to read the BBC's "May 2012: Guidelines In Full" - bbc.co.uk/.../... - where they will find the following suggestion: "Anyone requiring further advice on the application of these guidelines should consult the Chief Adviser Politics" with the link to that gentleman's email address: ric.bailey
bbc.co.uk.
As the one responsible for the guidelines, he will doubtless be the one most distraught at their flouting.
PS: proper "mailto" links don't seem to work here and just putting in an AT sign in the text seems to auto-generate a garbled one. Does anyone know where proper instructions for this can be found? This site's dialect of BBCode doesn't support the [email] tag.
Their one conceivable out is that an "All-out election" is not a "General election", but even that would be pretty shaky as their definition of General election ignores the Scotland Act 1998 which refers to general elections for Scotland, and May 2011 was correctly treated as a general election.
Knowing that complaints to the BBC are useless, others may wish to read the BBC's "May 2012: Guidelines In Full" - bbc.co.uk/.../... - where they will find the following suggestion: "Anyone requiring further advice on the application of these guidelines should consult the Chief Adviser Politics" with the link to that gentleman's email address: ric.bailey
bbc.co.uk.As the one responsible for the guidelines, he will doubtless be the one most distraught at their flouting.
PS: proper "mailto" links don't seem to work here and just putting in an AT sign in the text seems to auto-generate a garbled one. Does anyone know where proper instructions for this can be found? This site's dialect of BBCode doesn't support the [email] tag.
#
2012-05-07 12:05
Excellent post and that site is a wealth of information about what is expected / required from the BBC during / after elections.
1.3 The Guidelines
There is no area of broadcasting where the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality is more closely scrutinised than in reporting election campaigns.
These Guidelines are intended to offer a framework within which journalists:
•can operate in as free and creative an environment as possible,
•deliver to audiences impartial and independent reporting of the campaign, giving fair coverage, rigorous scrutiny and due weight to the policies and campaigns of all parties
bbc.co.uk/.../...
1.3 The Guidelines
There is no area of broadcasting where the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality is more closely scrutinised than in reporting election campaigns.
These Guidelines are intended to offer a framework within which journalists:
•can operate in as free and creative an environment as possible,
•deliver to audiences impartial and independent reporting of the campaign, giving fair coverage, rigorous scrutiny and due weight to the policies and campaigns of all parties
bbc.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-05-07 12:35
Barbazenzero PS: proper "mailto" links don't seem to work here and just putting in an AT sign in the text seems to auto-generate a garbled one. Does anyone know where proper instructions for this can be found?
I have just sent an email to the address you put up
ric.baileybbc.co.uk
I have copied the email here just for the record.
Sir
I would like to draw your attention to this article in which it is claimed that the BBC are contravening their own guidelines with regard to reportage of elections.
see here...
newsnetscotland.com/.../...
In this case my query is confined to the Scottish election.
Can you explain to me why the BBC Scotland website is going against it's own stated method of determining gains / holds in elections.
see here...
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
Can you explain to me why the BBC would allow the perception that their figures re gains / holds were wrong based on the BBC's own method of determining the outcomes (as I have shown above).
Further can you tell me if the same methodology was / is used to determine the outcome of the elections in England and Wales and in the London Mayoral election.
I should add that I shall be copying this email to any other persons / bodies I feel may help me to find answers to my questions.
In closing I would like to say that I am casting no aspertions on the BBC only that I would like clarification on this matter and since you are the person responsible
("Anyone requiring further advice on the application of these guidelines should consult the Chief Adviser Politics")
I am sure you will want to rectify any mistakes if any have been made.
I thank you in advance and await your response.
Yours
I have just sent an email to the address you put up
ric.bailey
bbc.co.ukI have copied the email here just for the record.
Sir
I would like to draw your attention to this article in which it is claimed that the BBC are contravening their own guidelines with regard to reportage of elections.
see here...
newsnetscotland.com/.../...
In this case my query is confined to the Scottish election.
Can you explain to me why the BBC Scotland website is going against it's own stated method of determining gains / holds in elections.
see here...
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
Can you explain to me why the BBC would allow the perception that their figures re gains / holds were wrong based on the BBC's own method of determining the outcomes (as I have shown above).
Further can you tell me if the same methodology was / is used to determine the outcome of the elections in England and Wales and in the London Mayoral election.
I should add that I shall be copying this email to any other persons / bodies I feel may help me to find answers to my questions.
In closing I would like to say that I am casting no aspertions on the BBC only that I would like clarification on this matter and since you are the person responsible
("Anyone requiring further advice on the application of these guidelines should consult the Chief Adviser Politics")
I am sure you will want to rectify any mistakes if any have been made.
I thank you in advance and await your response.
Yours
#
2012-05-07 12:44
Good email and sets the right tone. No point in going into attack mode in the first instance.
#
2012-05-07 12:52
I don't really expect to get any satisfaction from them but ..well you never know.
#
2012-05-07 13:58
No point writing to Ric Bailey - he's the one that the First Minister referred to previously as a "Gauleiter". Mind you, if the cap fits....
Seems to me these shennanigans with the election results are soming from Pacific Quay, where I do believe there are direct (and personal) connections between political editors and prominent members of the Labour party.
By the way, there must be somewhere to get the official election results, rather than relying on the BBC or wiki - surely the Electoral Commission or some body like that holds all the data?
Seems to me these shennanigans with the election results are soming from Pacific Quay, where I do believe there are direct (and personal) connections between political editors and prominent members of the Labour party.
By the way, there must be somewhere to get the official election results, rather than relying on the BBC or wiki - surely the Electoral Commission or some body like that holds all the data?
#
2012-05-07 17:28
Look at Gerry Hassan's intelligent respinse to the 'Glasgow question' at gerryhassan.com/.../...
#
2012-05-07 12:13
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Hhhmmm..hearing promises made to the Brethern about changing the code of conduct in Glasgow's parades policy in return for a Labour vote.
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
The Brothers in the OO promised an anti-Labour campaign in run-up to last week's election which didn't materialise. Happy with the promises?
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Confirmation from @Andrew4Glasgow who attend Monday's meeting in the Evangelical Church "and Matheson said he would reverse policy".
AS criticised in Glasgow for making a statement in support of Rangers FC employees, yet no problem for Labour to do a back-door deal with the Orange Order.
Hhhmmm..hearing promises made to the Brethern about changing the code of conduct in Glasgow's parades policy in return for a Labour vote.
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
The Brothers in the OO promised an anti-Labour campaign in run-up to last week's election which didn't materialise. Happy with the promises?
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Confirmation from @Andrew4Glasgow who attend Monday's meeting in the Evangelical Church "and Matheson said he would reverse policy".
AS criticised in Glasgow for making a statement in support of Rangers FC employees, yet no problem for Labour to do a back-door deal with the Orange Order.
#
2012-05-07 12:20
Yes, as suspected, Labour don't waste time campaigning. They have other ways. This kind of behaviour must never again slip under the radar of the SNP.
#
2012-05-07 13:06
Should this not be reported to (and I hesitate to say it) the electoral commission.
Surely this is in breach of practice for local elections.
Do we have the dates and full details of those communications?
Surely this is in breach of practice for local elections.
Do we have the dates and full details of those communications?
#
2012-05-07 12:17
** FAO scottish_skier 2012-05-07 11:19 **
SS, thanks as always for that rational evidence-based analysis. Do you have a twitter account or blog ? If you haven't then can I kindly request that you get one set-up (although I'm sure you're already busy enough !) People like yourself doing all this data-analysis need to get it out to as many peope as possible.
cheers !
SS, thanks as always for that rational evidence-based analysis. Do you have a twitter account or blog ? If you haven't then can I kindly request that you get one set-up (although I'm sure you're already busy enough !) People like yourself doing all this data-analysis need to get it out to as many peope as possible.
cheers !
#
2012-05-07 12:18
Whilst impartiality is built into the BBC Charter observation of this is woefully lacking especially at BBC Scotland. Paton took the 'observation' given to him by Salmond and did - absolutely - nothing !.
The 'Respect Agenda' is clearly running riot in the corridors of power. Cameron gave up on it right from day 1. Paton too his pet poodle in the state broadcaster, the BBC complies.
Withold the money from the BBC, the only way to make them sit up and take notice, or will they ?.
The 'Respect Agenda' is clearly running riot in the corridors of power. Cameron gave up on it right from day 1. Paton too his pet poodle in the state broadcaster, the BBC complies.
Withold the money from the BBC, the only way to make them sit up and take notice, or will they ?.
#
2012-05-07 12:19
Who rally gives a stuff about the BBCs figures?
Once all the parties have had their "Spin" on what went on, everyone will settle down.
Once all the parties have had their "Spin" on what went on, everyone will settle down.
#
2012-05-07 12:24
Exel, the BBC is using public money extracted under threat to tell untruths. Whether deliberately or not, it is not acceptable.
There is no comeback for the people who pay their wages, or rather the comeback does just that - comes right back to them and gets fed into their hermetically sealed complaints system.
There is no comeback for the people who pay their wages, or rather the comeback does just that - comes right back to them and gets fed into their hermetically sealed complaints system.
#
2012-05-07 13:08
Obviously you don't give a stuff.
You are right though, everyone will settle down and then it will be on to the next spin cycle.
You are right though, everyone will settle down and then it will be on to the next spin cycle.
#
2012-05-07 12:29
Amateurish coverage of the election by the Beeb. Gail Sheridan was described as being "No longer a Glasgow councillor".
The absense of the Socialists as a credible alternative to Labour is a cause for regret.
The absense of the Socialists as a credible alternative to Labour is a cause for regret.
#
2012-05-07 12:34
At first it seemed that the Westminster puppet, the BBC, were running scared of Scotland, but no, it transpires they are running terrified of Scottish ability, achievement, honesty and integrity.
The lies and distortions can only increase in scale and volume, now.
Yet they seem utterly perplexed that anyone would contemplate ditching them.
Incredible, especially as we are the latest in a long,global line to do so.
The lies and distortions can only increase in scale and volume, now.
Yet they seem utterly perplexed that anyone would contemplate ditching them.
Incredible, especially as we are the latest in a long,global line to do so.
#
2012-05-07 12:44
scotsman.com/.../...
Labour tuns to Tories to strike power deal....now who would have expected anything else.
Johann Lamont's couthy, wan o' the peepul persona at FMQ's like so much else
about Labour in Scotland is as authentic as rocking horse excreta.
Labour tuns to Tories to strike power deal....now who would have expected anything else.
Johann Lamont's couthy, wan o' the peepul persona at FMQ's like so much else
about Labour in Scotland is as authentic as rocking horse excreta.
#
2012-05-07 12:45
Apologies if this has already been posted - Here's fascinating analysis from Moridura - really worth a read:
'The Scottish local election results - the inquest and the spin'
moridura.blogspot.co.uk/.../...
'The Scottish local election results - the inquest and the spin'
moridura.blogspot.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-05-07 13:01
I found this comment moridura.blogspot.co.uk/.../... (0450am) which Peter Curran made to RevStu on April 18th in response to a fairly anodyne observation about the way the BBC doesn't employ SNP supporters slightly staggering to be honest.
He really doesn't care to hear the BBC accused of bias.
He really doesn't care to hear the BBC accused of bias.
#
2012-05-07 13:21
I have to agree with your post. I find this denial (for that is what it is) of quite blatant manipulation of the results by the BBC simply cannot be ignored.
There is a strategy in the field of spin, which is solely concerned at not per se disputing a false statement, rather it deliberately adds layer upon layer of 'alternative' doubts and questions or interpretations . The desired effect is to create disharmony, and sow doubts in the minds of those who hold firm views on a particular subject. It has a dispersion effect, removing unity of views and purpose.
In the early days of the independence debate, we were fed silly nonsense to argue against independence. Now, and especially over the last few months I have seen a marked increase in posters here and elsewhere who purportedly support either the SNP or independence, yet then pursue a quite irrational process of negativity which they say they subscribe to.
Sophisticated spin, is just that. It lulls even the best of us to take alternative stances on what are in the cold light of day, incontrovertibl e facts.
The BBC has been shown to have been guilty of the most intolerable bias and data manipulation with these election results. Only clouds of naivety prevent some from seeing it.
There is a strategy in the field of spin, which is solely concerned at not per se disputing a false statement, rather it deliberately adds layer upon layer of 'alternative' doubts and questions or interpretations . The desired effect is to create disharmony, and sow doubts in the minds of those who hold firm views on a particular subject. It has a dispersion effect, removing unity of views and purpose.
In the early days of the independence debate, we were fed silly nonsense to argue against independence. Now, and especially over the last few months I have seen a marked increase in posters here and elsewhere who purportedly support either the SNP or independence, yet then pursue a quite irrational process of negativity which they say they subscribe to.
Sophisticated spin, is just that. It lulls even the best of us to take alternative stances on what are in the cold light of day, incontrovertibl e facts.
The BBC has been shown to have been guilty of the most intolerable bias and data manipulation with these election results. Only clouds of naivety prevent some from seeing it.
#
2012-05-07 12:59
Meanwhile, the unrelenting negativity continues at the BBC. The main story on BBC Scotland web page today is 'Jobless rate set to outstrip UK' - based on a purely speculative report by the CEBR. Second story is Scottish Government ACCUSED of 'failure' over early years care. Yet over on the 'Home' page, David Cameron gets to put a positive spin on the Tories poor election results: headline - 'Time for more hard work'. I've really started to regret that I contribute towards BBC viewing figures. But is there any alternative other than Newsnet Scotland?
PS Hello to all at NNS. I really appreciate the balance that this site provides.
PS Hello to all at NNS. I really appreciate the balance that this site provides.
#
2012-05-07 14:03
CEBR - this a right wing think tank (why the hell are these think tanks given creedence?) which previously opined that bank holidays were a drain on the ecomony and should be abolished. No doubt they are working on proposals for 24 hour day working and no weekends off.
You'd think that maybe if they actually increased holiday entitlement it might stimulate the economy and create more jobs... just a thought.
You'd think that maybe if they actually increased holiday entitlement it might stimulate the economy and create more jobs... just a thought.
#
2012-05-07 14:25
Welcome Hillside!
I noticed the same spin on the website. It's all grist to the mill & will lose them a few more license fees, which I support but (as per mods policy) will not condone. :-)
I noticed the same spin on the website. It's all grist to the mill & will lose them a few more license fees, which I support but (as per mods policy) will not condone. :-)
#
2012-05-07 14:44
Yes, of course, the fact that I help to fund this spin is even more galling.
With regard to the CEBR report I mentioned above, I understand that the reason Scotland is expected to fall behind the UK is that we are more vulnerable to public sector job losses. Given that these job cuts are driven by the Libcons, and the SNP Government has so far resisted them. I am at a loss to understand why the SNP even have to defend their record on this!
With regard to the CEBR report I mentioned above, I understand that the reason Scotland is expected to fall behind the UK is that we are more vulnerable to public sector job losses. Given that these job cuts are driven by the Libcons, and the SNP Government has so far resisted them. I am at a loss to understand why the SNP even have to defend their record on this!
#
2012-05-07 18:21
Ah, the BBC trots out the CEBR again – what a surprise!!- And the two sub-headings below the BBC article are beauties (handpicked no doubt).
That would be the CEBR headed by a Scot who 8 months ago said Scotland will be a ‘Third World Country’ in 18 years.
Yup, this oil rich, asset rich country with its educated workforce is doomed!!
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
There would have to be two moons in the sky before I would believe anything the CEBR says in their ‘SPECULATIVE’ reports. But of course it is manna from heaven for the BBC in Scotland, how sad!!
That would be the CEBR headed by a Scot who 8 months ago said Scotland will be a ‘Third World Country’ in 18 years.
Yup, this oil rich, asset rich country with its educated workforce is doomed!!
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
There would have to be two moons in the sky before I would believe anything the CEBR says in their ‘SPECULATIVE’ reports. But of course it is manna from heaven for the BBC in Scotland, how sad!!
#
2012-05-08 00:32
Absolutely! One of the subheadings you mention is dated 14th March. Did they have to go back that far to find a related story on the Scottish economy? Or just one which was suitably depressing?
#
2012-05-07 13:04
Well, letters of complaint may not be having the desired effect but I think the demonstration outside the BBC on the 26th of May should do the trick. Just need to ensure that we have enough support.
#
2012-05-07 13:11
If anyone wants a laugh,look at the Heralds map of the election results given with sunday's newspaper. It also quotes the 58% labour gain while all the graphes compare 2007 with 2012.....The Glasgow Labour gain from NOC is particularily funny as it shows both graphs....but the funniest is Aberdeenshire which has no change with NOC and quoting Labour as the largest Party with 17 councillors to SNP 15....there are lots more in what must be the most amatuerish political map in history.
#
2012-05-07 13:25
Can somebody PLEASE tell me where the SNP is getting this +62 figure from? Any way you slice it, it seems to be 61.
We all agree the number of seats won is as follows.
SNP 424
Labour 394
Tory 115
LibDem 71
Green 14
Looking at the 2007 BBC web page, and the relevant wikipedia page, the corresponding numbers for 2007 are given as follows.
SNP 363
Labour 348
Tory 143
LibDem 166
Green 8
Simple arithmetic thus gives the change from 2007 as
SNP +61
Labour +46
Tory -28
LibDem -95
Green +6
The SNP web site posts the above figures for 2012 seats gained. However it claims an increase of 62 seats for the SNP and a decrease of 29 for the Conservatives. Logically, that means it is looking at a list of 2007 results with one fewer SNP seat and one more Tory seat. However, surely the list of seats won is incontrovertibl e. Where is it getting its figures from? Has the SNP made a mistake?
It's a relatively trivial point, but it's bugging me. Can anyone explain?
We all agree the number of seats won is as follows.
SNP 424
Labour 394
Tory 115
LibDem 71
Green 14
Looking at the 2007 BBC web page, and the relevant wikipedia page, the corresponding numbers for 2007 are given as follows.
SNP 363
Labour 348
Tory 143
LibDem 166
Green 8
Simple arithmetic thus gives the change from 2007 as
SNP +61
Labour +46
Tory -28
LibDem -95
Green +6
The SNP web site posts the above figures for 2012 seats gained. However it claims an increase of 62 seats for the SNP and a decrease of 29 for the Conservatives. Logically, that means it is looking at a list of 2007 results with one fewer SNP seat and one more Tory seat. However, surely the list of seats won is incontrovertibl e. Where is it getting its figures from? Has the SNP made a mistake?
It's a relatively trivial point, but it's bugging me. Can anyone explain?
#
2012-05-07 13:57
I have found this paper which seems to provide independent confirmation of the 2007 figures as 363 for the SNP and 143 for the Conservatives. That definitely gives +61 and -28 respectively for change in 2012.
scottishaffairs.org/.../...
What on earth is the SNP web page playing at, and why is the above article accepting this +62 figure without questioning it?
I have emailed the SNP about this, but today is a holiday and I assume they are busy so who knows if I'll ever get an answer.
scottishaffairs.org/.../...
What on earth is the SNP web page playing at, and why is the above article accepting this +62 figure without questioning it?
I have emailed the SNP about this, but today is a holiday and I assume they are busy so who knows if I'll ever get an answer.
#
2012-05-07 14:02
Could it be that the extra 1 is assuming no change in Dunoon ward of Argyll & Bute, which was 1 SNP + 2 Ind in 2007?
#
2012-05-07 14:08
I don't think they could or should do that, but I had considered it. However, that doesn't explain the discrepancy in the Conservative results.
I'm very disappointed in the above article, which notices the discrepancy, but then just blindly assumes the SNP web page is right without questioning it or doing any sums on its own behalf.
If anyone from NNS is actually reading this, would you care to comment?
Your comment had been passed to the editorial team - NNS Mod Team
I'm very disappointed in the above article, which notices the discrepancy, but then just blindly assumes the SNP web page is right without questioning it or doing any sums on its own behalf.
If anyone from NNS is actually reading this, would you care to comment?
Your comment had been passed to the editorial team - NNS Mod Team
#
2012-05-07 14:24
I agree that they shouldn't add the 3 seats to the 2012 figures, but it would be entirely logical to subtract 1 SNP and 2 others from the 2007 "previous" figures until the 2012 election is actually held in Dunoon.
Postscript: Even fairer would be to add 3 seats as "vacant" in the tables with an annotation to explain why.
I don't recall the BBC having done that for Thirsk & Malton on their 2010 site - news.bbc.co.uk/.../results. Perhaps they did, but unfortunately few of those pages have time stamps and the Thirsk & Malton result page - news.bbc.co.uk/.../e68.stm - makes no mention of that election being held on a different day to the other 649.
Postscript: Even fairer would be to add 3 seats as "vacant" in the tables with an annotation to explain why.
I don't recall the BBC having done that for Thirsk & Malton on their 2010 site - news.bbc.co.uk/.../results. Perhaps they did, but unfortunately few of those pages have time stamps and the Thirsk & Malton result page - news.bbc.co.uk/.../e68.stm - makes no mention of that election being held on a different day to the other 649.
#
2012-05-07 15:13
They might have done that for the SNP total, though it's a slightly weird thing to do, but since Dunoon doesn't change the Conservative tallies in any way I can't see how Dunoon would explain -29 being given instead of -28 for that party.
That's what makes me think this isn't Dunoon. The thing to do with Dunoon is wait till next week and add in the results. With a footnote now saying these results are pending and that will be done. Bur there's no way Dunoon affects the Conservative total.
That's what makes me think this isn't Dunoon. The thing to do with Dunoon is wait till next week and add in the results. With a footnote now saying these results are pending and that will be done. Bur there's no way Dunoon affects the Conservative total.
#
2012-05-07 21:39
There were 1223 seats available in 2012 against 1222 in 2007. I do not know where the extra seat came from but perhaps the Earl of Caithness was standing for Rockall! I have no explanation for the tory discrepancy.
#
2012-05-07 14:36
I agree. It's not good to simply assert this without explaining the thinking behind it. It's bothering me too.
#
2012-05-07 13:46
Marga B 2012-05-07 12:24
"Exel, the BBC is using public money extracted under threat to tell untruths. Whether deliberately or not, it is not acceptable.
There is no comeback for the people who pay their wages, or rather the comeback does just that - comes right back to them and gets fed into their hermetically sealed complaints system."
The BBC did report record low turnout in almost every ward, the fact that the lib/dems were punished for their joining the coalition and that the SNP fielded a record number of candidates. Simply getting an analysis wrong is not a major crime against humanity.
Is all the “whinging” because they did not acknowledge “ Final analysis confirms SNP election triumph”?
"Exel, the BBC is using public money extracted under threat to tell untruths. Whether deliberately or not, it is not acceptable.
There is no comeback for the people who pay their wages, or rather the comeback does just that - comes right back to them and gets fed into their hermetically sealed complaints system."
The BBC did report record low turnout in almost every ward, the fact that the lib/dems were punished for their joining the coalition and that the SNP fielded a record number of candidates. Simply getting an analysis wrong is not a major crime against humanity.
Is all the “whinging” because they did not acknowledge “ Final analysis confirms SNP election triumph”?
#
2012-05-07 14:02
Quoting exel:
First of all it's not "whinging" -it's outrage and the reason it's outrage is that it's not a matter of the BBC "failing to acknowledge" - it's a clear matter of the BBC cooking the books to make the result look entirely different to what it actually was.
Even today, 4 days after the results were declared, the BBC, with blatant jiggery-pokery which breaches their own definition of a "gain", still manages to show Labour in front on number of Councillors gained when in fact - by the BBC's own definition of a "gain", the SNP ought to be shown in front.
That is not a "failure to acknowledge", that is a blatant perversion of the facts.
Get it?
...Is all the “whinging” because they did not acknowledge “ Final analysis confirms SNP election triumph”?
First of all it's not "whinging" -it's outrage and the reason it's outrage is that it's not a matter of the BBC "failing to acknowledge" - it's a clear matter of the BBC cooking the books to make the result look entirely different to what it actually was.
Even today, 4 days after the results were declared, the BBC, with blatant jiggery-pokery which breaches their own definition of a "gain", still manages to show Labour in front on number of Councillors gained when in fact - by the BBC's own definition of a "gain", the SNP ought to be shown in front.
That is not a "failure to acknowledge", that is a blatant perversion of the facts.
Get it?
#
2012-05-07 13:47
Just listened to BBC Scotland news,no mention of Salmond cosying up to Murdoch whats wrong oh yes the election is over.I wonder what will be the next thing the 3 stogies will get up to.
#
2012-05-07 14:01
O/T...
Once again the Norwegians beat us to it. Must be something to do with being a small, independent and wealthy country..
aftenbladet.no/.../...
Once again the Norwegians beat us to it. Must be something to do with being a small, independent and wealthy country..
aftenbladet.no/.../...
#
2012-05-07 14:09
Here is the response I got from the BBC regarding my query (posted above)at jafurn 2012-05-07 12:35
BBC reply.....
Dear Sir
A number of people have raised a similar issue with our online team- I am copying to you their reply:
In local council elections throughout the UK, it has long been the BBC’s policy to report changes of seats based on a comparison with council seats at dissolution and not with the previous election (ie 2007).
In doing so, we adopt the same policy as the Press Association (PA), who supply all our results data. To make the data feed work we have to ensure that all results are as described by PA. As PA also supplies results to the vast majority of the UK newspaper industry, you should find that our results are consistent with those reported by other media outlets.
For local elections, we only use previous election data when comparing changes in vote share. The BBC uses data compiled by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth to make these comparisons. Again, this is an approach shared widely across the rest of the media.
BBC News website election team.
I should emphasise that this is consistent across the UK in council elections and is the same method used last time these seats were contested in 2007. As the standard adopted by other media outlets, the Scotsman is therefore not quoting the “BBC” figures, but those published by the Press Association.
You are right to point out that in Parliamentary or Assembly elections, the base line is usually the previous election. That is why, in the guidelines quoted by newsnet, the term “general election” is not a mistake – but says exactly what it means!
I hope that helps to shed some light on what can be a confusing area – there are, of course, different ways of measuring these things, which is why the BBC uses consistent methodology in each election, so that each party’s performance is being measured in a consistent way.
Yours sincerely
Ric Bailey
Chief Adviser, Politics
BBC Editorial Policy and Standards
BBC reply.....
Dear Sir
A number of people have raised a similar issue with our online team- I am copying to you their reply:
In local council elections throughout the UK, it has long been the BBC’s policy to report changes of seats based on a comparison with council seats at dissolution and not with the previous election (ie 2007).
In doing so, we adopt the same policy as the Press Association (PA), who supply all our results data. To make the data feed work we have to ensure that all results are as described by PA. As PA also supplies results to the vast majority of the UK newspaper industry, you should find that our results are consistent with those reported by other media outlets.
For local elections, we only use previous election data when comparing changes in vote share. The BBC uses data compiled by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth to make these comparisons. Again, this is an approach shared widely across the rest of the media.
BBC News website election team.
I should emphasise that this is consistent across the UK in council elections and is the same method used last time these seats were contested in 2007. As the standard adopted by other media outlets, the Scotsman is therefore not quoting the “BBC” figures, but those published by the Press Association.
You are right to point out that in Parliamentary or Assembly elections, the base line is usually the previous election. That is why, in the guidelines quoted by newsnet, the term “general election” is not a mistake – but says exactly what it means!
I hope that helps to shed some light on what can be a confusing area – there are, of course, different ways of measuring these things, which is why the BBC uses consistent methodology in each election, so that each party’s performance is being measured in a consistent way.
Yours sincerely
Ric Bailey
Chief Adviser, Politics
BBC Editorial Policy and Standards
#
2012-05-07 14:39
Interesting but where does that leave their guidelines? What grounds do the SNP have for their figures? Why do you think local and national elections should have different "baselines"?
#
2012-05-07 14:40
I spent some time yesterday looking up previous Scottish council elections on the BBC site, but found that they didn't show gains or losses for previous elections, just totals. I'm not sure if they did at the time and the information has been lost (BBC archiving of their web content is not great).
I did try and look at the English council elections but it's difficult there as different areas vote at different times (not sure why this is; would be interesting to know).
The explanation from the BBC seems plausible, except for the consistency point. I guess he means consistency across previous council elections (which, as above, I've failed to confirm), but it's certainly not consistent across different election types. Would be interesting to ask him to explain why council elections are treated differently, and how this adds to the consistency he talks about.
Edit: it's also pretty pathetic is it not, that the BBC can't be bothered to make this data up itself. It has to get it from the Press Association?
Just what are the BBC doing with their £5bn a year?
I did try and look at the English council elections but it's difficult there as different areas vote at different times (not sure why this is; would be interesting to know).
The explanation from the BBC seems plausible, except for the consistency point. I guess he means consistency across previous council elections (which, as above, I've failed to confirm), but it's certainly not consistent across different election types. Would be interesting to ask him to explain why council elections are treated differently, and how this adds to the consistency he talks about.
Edit: it's also pretty pathetic is it not, that the BBC can't be bothered to make this data up itself. It has to get it from the Press Association?
Just what are the BBC doing with their £5bn a year?
#
2012-05-07 14:46
Quoting Triangular Ears:
I'd expect nothing less - but what isn't plausible to me is, if I accept that they "consistently" report Council Election and GE "gains" differently - why do they not make this abundantly clear in the "glossary" they provided for "Vote 2012"
Why are they allowing the impression to be given that the definition of a "gain" in these elections is the same as it would be for a GE?
...The explanation from the BBC seems plausible...
I'd expect nothing less - but what isn't plausible to me is, if I accept that they "consistently" report Council Election and GE "gains" differently - why do they not make this abundantly clear in the "glossary" they provided for "Vote 2012"
Why are they allowing the impression to be given that the definition of a "gain" in these elections is the same as it would be for a GE?
#
2012-05-07 14:55
Totally agree, and I think I pretty much said the same thing after the bit you quoted!
#
2012-05-07 14:38
My reply to the above response..
Thank you for your prompt response .
I wonder then why your own guidelines do not seem to correspond to that answer.
In local council elections throughout the UK, it has long been the BBC’s policy to report changes of seats based on a comparison with council seats at dissolution and not with the previous election (ie 2007).
In your guidelines it states quite clearly that
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
You go on to say..
You are right to point out that in Parliamentary or Assembly elections, the base line is usually the previous election. That is why, in the guidelines quoted by newsnet, the term “general election” is not a mistake – but says exactly what it means!
General election: Election at which all seats in the House of Commons are contested.
This was not a 'general election' it was a local council election and can be witnessed as such by the fact that the seats were for local councils and not national parliaments.
So the guidelines as stated (see above) have,it seems to me ,been ignored. the question is ..why?
You surely cannot compare seats at a general election with seats at a local council election! the seats are not even the same .
I would have thought you should only compare like for like as is stated in your guidelines.
In your own guidelines
bbc.co.uk/.../...
20 April 2012 Last updated at 12:02
it has the headline..
A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012
Confused by those election phrases trotted out by politicians and commentators? Cut through the waffle with this handy guide:
Now if there is another election taking place in 2012 then I could see your point but as these elections are the only ones in the UK this year then your argument seems to be invalidated.
The guidelines contained here have not been adhered to on the BBC Scotland website..
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Where you are clearly showing the wrong number of gains / holds attained in the local council election 2012 as compared to the local council election 2007 as your own guidelines show that you should have.
I will copy it here again
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
There is no reference I can find that says that these guidelines do not apply to local elections.
Can you please further clarify and explain to me why the guidelines are not being followed?
thank you
Thank you for your prompt response .
I wonder then why your own guidelines do not seem to correspond to that answer.
In local council elections throughout the UK, it has long been the BBC’s policy to report changes of seats based on a comparison with council seats at dissolution and not with the previous election (ie 2007).
In your guidelines it states quite clearly that
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
You go on to say..
You are right to point out that in Parliamentary or Assembly elections, the base line is usually the previous election. That is why, in the guidelines quoted by newsnet, the term “general election” is not a mistake – but says exactly what it means!
General election: Election at which all seats in the House of Commons are contested.
This was not a 'general election' it was a local council election and can be witnessed as such by the fact that the seats were for local councils and not national parliaments.
So the guidelines as stated (see above) have,it seems to me ,been ignored. the question is ..why?
You surely cannot compare seats at a general election with seats at a local council election! the seats are not even the same .
I would have thought you should only compare like for like as is stated in your guidelines.
In your own guidelines
bbc.co.uk/.../...
20 April 2012 Last updated at 12:02
it has the headline..
A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012
Confused by those election phrases trotted out by politicians and commentators? Cut through the waffle with this handy guide:
Now if there is another election taking place in 2012 then I could see your point but as these elections are the only ones in the UK this year then your argument seems to be invalidated.
The guidelines contained here have not been adhered to on the BBC Scotland website..
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Where you are clearly showing the wrong number of gains / holds attained in the local council election 2012 as compared to the local council election 2007 as your own guidelines show that you should have.
I will copy it here again
Gain: If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general election this is described as a "gain"
Hold: If a party wins a seat that it won at the previous general election this is described as a "hold".
There is no reference I can find that says that these guidelines do not apply to local elections.
Can you please further clarify and explain to me why the guidelines are not being followed?
thank you
#
2012-05-07 15:09
I think there is also the question of perception and explanation. If indeed it is longstanding practice to report council results this way, then they are presenting this very badly.
First, this should be made clear in the guidelines, rather than being ignored while the GE guidelines are highlighted. But second, the fact that this system produces an anomalous picture should be explained. Many people are clearly confused and even upset by this. The root cause of the confusion is the BBC's lack of clarity and refusal to explain.
First, they should state clearly what their baseline is. Everybody assumes it is 2007, and they make no attempt to disabuse them. Then they should actually say this produces a rather misleading picture due to seats with defecting councillors being held, and also quote the 2007 comparison.
It's the way they leave the whole thing completely up in the air with no explanation and no clarification that makes it seem particularly dishonest.
First, this should be made clear in the guidelines, rather than being ignored while the GE guidelines are highlighted. But second, the fact that this system produces an anomalous picture should be explained. Many people are clearly confused and even upset by this. The root cause of the confusion is the BBC's lack of clarity and refusal to explain.
First, they should state clearly what their baseline is. Everybody assumes it is 2007, and they make no attempt to disabuse them. Then they should actually say this produces a rather misleading picture due to seats with defecting councillors being held, and also quote the 2007 comparison.
It's the way they leave the whole thing completely up in the air with no explanation and no clarification that makes it seem particularly dishonest.
#
2012-05-07 16:07
How can they use different criteria for reporting on local and national elections? And what about Scottish or even European elections? Even supposedly knowledgeable journalists were confused (STV), how can this be fair on the public?
In local elections it's data compiled by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth and Press Association standards. Why should reporting on elections be governed by international press conventions? For international standardisation ? Why does the same argument (standardisatio n ) not apply across internal elections in the same country?
It's not the only apparently random decision, for example the Scottish elections are presumably held on local election regulations because e.g. being registered from abroad for UK elections gives you no right to vote in Scottish elections. Or can we assume they use a third set of criteria? Or is it none of the above?
Is this not one for the electoral commission? If none of the three election layers in Scotland use the same reporting criteria, this may be justifiable technically but is democratically not acceptable because there is no transparency.
You also have to ask if there will be transparency in the rules for the referendum.
In local elections it's data compiled by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth and Press Association standards. Why should reporting on elections be governed by international press conventions? For international standardisation ? Why does the same argument (standardisatio n ) not apply across internal elections in the same country?
It's not the only apparently random decision, for example the Scottish elections are presumably held on local election regulations because e.g. being registered from abroad for UK elections gives you no right to vote in Scottish elections. Or can we assume they use a third set of criteria? Or is it none of the above?
Is this not one for the electoral commission? If none of the three election layers in Scotland use the same reporting criteria, this may be justifiable technically but is democratically not acceptable because there is no transparency.
You also have to ask if there will be transparency in the rules for the referendum.
#
2012-05-07 16:31
Marga B
You say exactly what I think. The BBC all weekend has been drawing parallels between these council results and the Scots Parliament results last year. Yet, if we are to believe the BBC explanations on how they calculate the results, they would have known it was like comparing apples and pears.
I think it's called double standards, and that's being kind.
You say exactly what I think. The BBC all weekend has been drawing parallels between these council results and the Scots Parliament results last year. Yet, if we are to believe the BBC explanations on how they calculate the results, they would have known it was like comparing apples and pears.
I think it's called double standards, and that's being kind.
#
2012-05-07 15:14
response to my email
I think you are mixing up Guidelines, which you would find on the BBC’s Editorial Policy website – and an article on the news website which was simply intended as a “handy guide” – a “Glossary” - for terms which you may come across in elections generally. The latter explicitly refers to “gains” in the context of a general election, not a local council one. The fact that the glossary includes the term “General Election” demonstrates that this is not intended to refer purely to the local council elections.
Could the glossary have been clearer ? Yes – and I have asked my colleagues in Online to take a look at it.
Is it anything to do with BBC guidelines ? No.
So,in my mind, as usual from the BBC as clear as the driven slush... oh and it's nothing to do with us ..
I think you are mixing up Guidelines, which you would find on the BBC’s Editorial Policy website – and an article on the news website which was simply intended as a “handy guide” – a “Glossary” - for terms which you may come across in elections generally. The latter explicitly refers to “gains” in the context of a general election, not a local council one. The fact that the glossary includes the term “General Election” demonstrates that this is not intended to refer purely to the local council elections.
Could the glossary have been clearer ? Yes – and I have asked my colleagues in Online to take a look at it.
Is it anything to do with BBC guidelines ? No.
So,in my mind, as usual from the BBC as clear as the driven slush... oh and it's nothing to do with us ..
#
2012-05-07 15:08
Severin Carrell now has allowed his latest blog in The Guardian to be open for comments after two days of his unionist rantings.
Time to get stuck in, enjoy !
guardian.co.uk/.../...
Time to get stuck in, enjoy !
guardian.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-05-07 15:56
I have just read some of the comments on the blog. Do nationalists think that that venting of anger that is demonstrated in such forum does anything to promote the nationalist cause?
I find it all rather off-putting.
I find it all rather off-putting.
#
2012-05-07 16:11
I think in amongst some of the ridicule that people show towards carrell, there are some very good points being made. Remember. comments only tend to be a reflection of what a journalist has written.
#
2012-05-07 16:15
gfaetheblock - I rather think that nationalists have as much right to vent (or express) their anger as anyone else, and in doing so I don't believe they are thinking about promoting anything.
Nationalists have geniune opinions and a sense of justice like anyone else and do not just speak up with an eye on who is listening.
Many interesting points have come up during detailed discussion and analysis.
Having said that, especially when on general interest forums I think everyone with convictions should try to be polite, and I agree with you that the comments by a couple of people on Severin's blog were uncalled for.
Nationalists have geniune opinions and a sense of justice like anyone else and do not just speak up with an eye on who is listening.
Many interesting points have come up during detailed discussion and analysis.
Having said that, especially when on general interest forums I think everyone with convictions should try to be polite, and I agree with you that the comments by a couple of people on Severin's blog were uncalled for.
#
2012-05-07 18:41
I enjoy us all disagreeing and expressing our opinions, this is of absolute importance, i just think we need to be polite about it.
I miss blether with brian, my take on the comments section being removed was due to the nasty and personal attacks on BT and others at got posted on it.
I miss blether with brian, my take on the comments section being removed was due to the nasty and personal attacks on BT and others at got posted on it.
#
2012-05-07 16:18
Quoting gfaetheblock:
I have just read the comments myself and I have to say my overwhelming sense was of frustration rather than anger at the situation with regard to being able to comment on 'blogs' at all.
Where is the value in an opinion that is not open to question?
Such as we have on BBc Scotland where we are being fed a load of 'facts and figures' but are not allowed to comment / query the veracity of thes facts and figures.
That makes me angry.
Why doesn't it make you angry?
I have just read some of the comments on the blog. Do nationalists think that that venting of anger that is demonstrated in such forum does anything to promote the nationalist cause?
I find it all rather off-putting.
I have just read the comments myself and I have to say my overwhelming sense was of frustration rather than anger at the situation with regard to being able to comment on 'blogs' at all.
Where is the value in an opinion that is not open to question?
Such as we have on BBc Scotland where we are being fed a load of 'facts and figures' but are not allowed to comment / query the veracity of thes facts and figures.
That makes me angry.
Why doesn't it make you angry?
#
2012-05-07 16:23
I have just read the comments myself and I have to say my overwhelming sense was of frustration rather than anger at the situation with regard to being able to comment on 'blogs' at all.
That's the impression I took from my visit.
That's the impression I took from my visit.
#
2012-05-07 15:42
Scottish Council Results.
Pro independence councillors + 67
Anti independence councillors - 75
Haven't counted every one personally,but comes from a reliable source?
Pro independence councillors + 67
Anti independence councillors - 75
Haven't counted every one personally,but comes from a reliable source?
#
2012-05-07 16:10
Good news. After 84 years of damaging Labour rule of Midlothian, the SNP have now formed a coalition with an independent and green.
84 years!!!!
snp.org/.../...
84 years!!!!
snp.org/.../...
#
2012-05-07 16:12
RL - wonder if we'll hear about it on the BBC..
Why has 'The revolution will not be televised' suddenly come into my head ?
Why has 'The revolution will not be televised' suddenly come into my head ?
#
2012-05-07 16:19
Well, if the BBC is NOT biased, as certain 'vociferous' commentators like to insist, let's wait and see, if they have this rather momentous step forward for Midlothian and the SNP on distorting Scotland tonight.
I'll not hold my breath.
I'll not hold my breath.
#
2012-05-07 16:19
Quoting Robert Louis:
Quoting Robert Louis:
Wonderful news.
Good news. After 84 years of damaging Labour rule of Midlothian, the SNP have now formed a coalition with an independent and green.
84 years!!!!
Quoting Robert Louis:
Good news. After 84 years of damaging Labour rule of Midlothian, the SNP have now formed a coalition with an independent and green.
84 years!!!!
Wonderful news.
#
2012-05-07 16:17
As regards the BBC and their dreadful misreporting of the Scottish council election results. If as they seem ti be saying this is what they always do, then why did they have a page on their website called;
"A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012"
Which describes the terms 'gain' and hold' quite differently to how the BBC say they actually work the results out.
They block comments on their political blogs ONLY in Scotland, and now this, so how can we ever trust the Westminster state broadcaster?
"A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012"
Which describes the terms 'gain' and hold' quite differently to how the BBC say they actually work the results out.
They block comments on their political blogs ONLY in Scotland, and now this, so how can we ever trust the Westminster state broadcaster?
#
2012-05-07 16:18
I understand there was a 32% turnout in Glasgow. Does anyone have the turnout figures for the other 31 councils??
Thankyou
Thankyou
#
2012-05-07 17:03
I would also be curious to the number of postal ballots in Glasgow as a percentage of the actual turnout
#
2012-05-07 17:13
The Glasgow figures are available on Wikipedia in some detail here: en.wikipedia.org/.../...
Unfortunately it doesn't give the postal votes breakdown, but does show that the SNP did gain a couple of seats from labour, whilst labour gained nothing from the SNP.
Unfortunately it doesn't give the postal votes breakdown, but does show that the SNP did gain a couple of seats from labour, whilst labour gained nothing from the SNP.
#
2012-05-07 17:22
Someone reported on another blog on this site that GCC were indicating a 25% postal ballot on their own web site. I couldn't find it myself,but I have to be honest, I did not try very hard. Still if that number is correct (25%) that means that the whole election may have turned on these votes.It would indeed be interesting to see how they voted, but that information is not retained ASAIK.
#
2012-05-07 17:33
Glasgow had the lowest turnout of the whole of Scotland, it seems. A detailed breakdown of voting on all parameters, if available, not just postal voting, would be an intersting exercise.
#
2012-05-07 16:39
Anyone know the breakdown of the Labour vote in Glasgow. I would like to know what percentage came from postal votes.
#
2012-05-07 18:42
Here we go…. As noted, from what poll data I have, I see nothing suggests the SNP are not still riding high nationally, just as they were in May 11 to the last Scotland-wide proper polls (MORI) in Jan/Feb of this year (also in 2007-9 polls). My analyses of subsets I posted before shows they are doing well for UKGE intention; the Holyrood vote shares having apparently transferred to UKGE to all intents and purposes as far as I can see.
So, for the council elections…. In May 11, the SNP gote 45.4% of first preference votes, yet they only got 32.3% of first preference votes in the 2012 council elections and it appeared Labour made gains. That might strike you good but not great for the SNP and good for Labour. Don’t be fooled!
If we compare the constituency and first preference results for the Holyrood and Council elections we can see what really happened, at least in terms of overall net shifts.
imageshack.us/.../...
The first thing we see is Labour actually got a lower share of first preference votes than in May 11, as did the Tories and the Libs. However, losses were not big; really it was a repeat of May 11 with a further erosion of unionist vote shares. Labour gained councillors yes, but this was from the Lib Dems (and possibly the Tories) who did not turn to the SNP and a product of the STV system which is close to PR, but not perfect PR. We can see the ‘others’ did quite well – these being mainly the Greens and the SSP. So why did the SNP not get 45% odd then? Well, in net terms, the ‘missing’ 13.1% SNP share went to independents. So, it’s not missing really, it’s still there. It’s just that in rural areas in the north particularly (e.g. Highland, Moray, Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, Argyll and Bute), people have traditionally voted strongly for independent candidates at council level rather than parties. These people then voted SNP or Liberal at national level, with most of them now SNP. Take Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar as per my earlier post: Holyrood 2011 SNP = 65%, Council 2012 = 68% independent…
Of course this all in net terms and there will be some Labour voters that voted for independents, but then there will have been some Labour voters that turned to the SNP etc etc… However, it is the net combined effect that matters and the graph illustrates this neatly. Our 44-45% min for the SNP at national level is still there from all the evidence.
So has a wheel fallen off the SNP bandwagon? Not at all. However, let the unionists think that if they like as we should ‘never interrupt the enemy when it is in the process of making a mistake’.
Touché Prof Curtice, touché…
So, for the council elections…. In May 11, the SNP gote 45.4% of first preference votes, yet they only got 32.3% of first preference votes in the 2012 council elections and it appeared Labour made gains. That might strike you good but not great for the SNP and good for Labour. Don’t be fooled!
If we compare the constituency and first preference results for the Holyrood and Council elections we can see what really happened, at least in terms of overall net shifts.
imageshack.us/.../...
The first thing we see is Labour actually got a lower share of first preference votes than in May 11, as did the Tories and the Libs. However, losses were not big; really it was a repeat of May 11 with a further erosion of unionist vote shares. Labour gained councillors yes, but this was from the Lib Dems (and possibly the Tories) who did not turn to the SNP and a product of the STV system which is close to PR, but not perfect PR. We can see the ‘others’ did quite well – these being mainly the Greens and the SSP. So why did the SNP not get 45% odd then? Well, in net terms, the ‘missing’ 13.1% SNP share went to independents. So, it’s not missing really, it’s still there. It’s just that in rural areas in the north particularly (e.g. Highland, Moray, Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, Argyll and Bute), people have traditionally voted strongly for independent candidates at council level rather than parties. These people then voted SNP or Liberal at national level, with most of them now SNP. Take Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar as per my earlier post: Holyrood 2011 SNP = 65%, Council 2012 = 68% independent…
Of course this all in net terms and there will be some Labour voters that voted for independents, but then there will have been some Labour voters that turned to the SNP etc etc… However, it is the net combined effect that matters and the graph illustrates this neatly. Our 44-45% min for the SNP at national level is still there from all the evidence.
So has a wheel fallen off the SNP bandwagon? Not at all. However, let the unionists think that if they like as we should ‘never interrupt the enemy when it is in the process of making a mistake’.
Touché Prof Curtice, touché…
#
2012-05-07 19:46
Bravo Skier:
Thanks for all your hard work in filling in the blank spots. I was not too downhearted with the election (bar lowish turnout) and this stuff you have sifted through goes a long way to uplifting us all on the site. The SNP are nudging along fine and I hope will learn some lessons from the last month in planning for the next one.
Regards
Thanks for all your hard work in filling in the blank spots. I was not too downhearted with the election (bar lowish turnout) and this stuff you have sifted through goes a long way to uplifting us all on the site. The SNP are nudging along fine and I hope will learn some lessons from the last month in planning for the next one.
Regards
#
2012-05-07 20:12
SS
Is this you hobby? Or do you just have an interest in Scottish politics? (serious question, btw)
Is this you hobby? Or do you just have an interest in Scottish politics? (serious question, btw)
#
2012-05-07 20:34
Both.
My day job is oil & gas production chemistry research/consultancy (hence the attraction to graphing things/looking for trends in data). Politics in my spare time, particularly seeing my country become a nation once again.
Cheers,
SS
My day job is oil & gas production chemistry research/consultancy (hence the attraction to graphing things/looking for trends in data). Politics in my spare time, particularly seeing my country become a nation once again.
Cheers,
SS
#
2012-05-07 21:39
Ahaa! That answers a lot of questions. :)
Spookily I've just finished doing pre press on this years oil and gas industry report. Looking forward to a right riveting read once it's through finishing.
Spookily I've just finished doing pre press on this years oil and gas industry report. Looking forward to a right riveting read once it's through finishing.
#
2012-05-07 22:48
If only Prof Curtice was as diligent in his own electoral analyses. Bloody good job anyway SS, I'm away to publicise your work everywhere else I can !
#
2012-05-08 11:08
Absolutely brilliant analysis scottish_skier - it makes perfect sense (hence why the BBC and Labour are ignoring it).
#
2012-05-07 18:59
How did the BBC report the English and Welsh results?
Was it a straightforward comparison between the 2012 results and the results from the last time these councils held elections?
I know that the English COuncils are different in that they do not all go to the polls in the same year still they did report gains etc so what werwe the BBC comparing the 2012 results with - or should that be 'to'?
Was it a straightforward comparison between the 2012 results and the results from the last time these councils held elections?
I know that the English COuncils are different in that they do not all go to the polls in the same year still they did report gains etc so what werwe the BBC comparing the 2012 results with - or should that be 'to'?
#
2012-05-07 19:21
It seems to me that the more detailed information we get, the more outrageous the BBC/MSM spin of the overall result becomes.
I was in the North East of England on both Polling Day and Results Day - and English friends (whose only source was the BBC/MSM) were remarking to me on "how badly the SNP had done"
It's now clear that the impression that was put out by the BBC in particular, was nothing more than a perversion of the truth.
I was going to attend the BBC demo on the 26th anyway, but this has made me all the more determined.
I was in the North East of England on both Polling Day and Results Day - and English friends (whose only source was the BBC/MSM) were remarking to me on "how badly the SNP had done"
It's now clear that the impression that was put out by the BBC in particular, was nothing more than a perversion of the truth.
I was going to attend the BBC demo on the 26th anyway, but this has made me all the more determined.
#
2012-05-07 19:57
To be fair, Harry, Labour managed expectations very well and SNP didn't.If you predict disaster anything less is victory.
#
2012-05-07 20:42
That may well be the case but I'm commenting on how the BBC have portayed the Election results not the Labour Party.
#
2012-05-07 21:32
Thanks Tartanfever,
Interesting if it's correct that Glasgow had the lowest turnout!.
Thankyou
Interesting if it's correct that Glasgow had the lowest turnout!.
Thankyou
#
2012-05-07 22:30
Our friends in Galicia have reported the correct figures.
sermosgaliza.com/.../...
sermosgaliza.com/.../...
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- STV independence debate a comf...
As I posted elsewhere, but relevant here... - STV independence debate a comf...
will ship them first thing on Monday Mo... - STV independence debate a comf...
He (Moore) or anyone else cannot articul... - STV independence debate a comf...
Hello Newsnetters, i haven't commented f... - Labour suspends selection proc...
Is there ever a time or an event where t... - STV independence debate a comf...
As far as I can see, the Channel Islands... - Nine candidates to contest Abe...
Heard that the Labour party were trying ... - Amazon should refund £10m Scot...
Was this funding from the Scottish Gover... - Nine candidates to contest Abe...
Will it be free and fair? How many posta... - Labour suspends selection proc...
Can I just give a last shout out for tod... - Labour suspends selection proc...
I am a member of Unite but have withheld... - Amazon should refund £10m Scot...
I have a lot of respect for the Green Pa... - STV independence debate a comf...
You can also use your Pound in Gibraltar... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
I am surprised nobody has picked up Fara... - STV independence debate a comf...
No and Yes. Same with Isle of Man I thin... - STV independence debate a comf...
I watched the programme and also taped i... - First Minister's Questions - 1...
We do not like to accept that cost versu... - Nine candidates to contest Abe...
Pretty sure Willie Young was on Lamont's... - STV independence debate a comf...
I bet you a pound they do ! - Labour suspends selection proc...
Is there nothing they are involved in wh...