Which is less a comment on the substantive debate than on the results of the STV opinion poll presented at the start of the programme, which showed Alex Salmond with more support than the other three leaders put together as regards who would make the best first minister.
To that extent it seems likely that even if Mr Salmond won the debate the gap between him and his rivals would narrow as the others took advantage of the exposure to garner a bit more support, particularly in view of the significant proportion of those polled who have still to make up their minds.
In particular, both Iain Gray (7%) and Tavish Scott (2%) secured ratings significantly at odds with their party's polling figures, and this is probably largely due to a lack of public recognition.
Of course, the narrowing of the gap would depend on sufficient voters watching the programme to have an impact on overall voting intentions. And also that none of the participants in the debate performed significantly worse than the others.
On the latter point - and although as per usual I lost interest fairly quickly - none of them seemed to perform disastrously in any significant respect. At an impressionistic level, and in keeping with the critiquing ethos of this blog, Alex Salmond seemed too subdued and anodyne, Iain Gray too confrontational and FMQs-ish, Annabel Goldie too self-righteous and patronising, while Tavish Scott was too, um, Lib Dem. (In fact I quite like Tavish's style in debates of this kind, but actually paying much attention to what he's saying is another matter!)
Of course, and as Iain Gray's figures in particular demonstrate, the leaders' own poll ratings don't readily translate into support for their parties. Thus with the SNP catching up on Labour in terms of party voting intentions, even if the yawning gap between Alex Salmond and the other leaders narrows slightly he could still paradoxically be getting closer to a second term as first minister.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Congratulations sir, on a headline to draw in the readers.
Ho ho ho.
As if I'd ever consider such a thing!!
Yes, very good headline. I would question your premise that Gray's main problem is lack of recognition, though. If that's the case, why is Goldie outpolling him?
Fair point, Colin, but Goldie has been an MSP since 1999 whereas Gray disappeared from view during the second Holyrood term, when I think he worked at Westminster?
Also, Gray has only been Labour leader for around half the time that Goldie has led the Tories. And she led her party during the last Holyrood elections, which is really the only time that many voters will become aware of the likes of Gray, Goldie, Scott and Harvie.
I'm not sure if there are figures for a basic recognition test, but I suspect Goldie would poll significantly better than Gray.
And indeed as you allude I'm not saying that recognition is the only factor, just a significant one - I certainly wouldn't expect Gray to suddenly poll figures commensurate with his party even after a few weeks of exposure to the masses, unless he performs spectacularly well, which seems unlikely.
And by the same token it's maybe not so much a question of comparing Gray's and Goldie's figures as the fact that they're in a totally different ball park from Alex Salmond's, who in comparison 'suffers' from over-recogntion.
And as I said in the post, Tavish Scott probably suffers the same recognition problems as Gray, and for much the same reasons.
Goldie's ratings are much more commensurate to her party's than Gray's and Scott's.
Scott's been the leader of the fourth party at Holyrood for two and a half years, and before that was, what, deputy leader? Of course no one's heard of him.
But Iain Gray was a government minister for four years, and has been leader of the opposition at Holyrood for almost three. He also went through a fairly high-profile leadership contest - Goldie, if memory serves, was coronated.
I guess we'll see. If Gray starts to pull ahead of her significantly over the next few weeks, recognition was probably the issue after all.
Fair points again, Colin, but I think you're perhaps overemphasising the perspective of political anoraks like ourselves - let's face it, what proportion of the public would recognise the likes of Jim Mather, or even Mike Russell?
Apart from maybe Nicola Sturgeon and Kenny MacAskill there can't be many others who enjoy widespread public recognition apart from the party leaders, and even that depends on having fought an election proper, and as leader, and Gray hasn't done that. Yet.
I found the Scotsman article from last month on the basic recognition test, and Gray managed just 18% as opposed to 80% for Salmond. Unfortunately Goldie wasn't included, but I suspect she whould come somewhere near the middle of the two, maybe 30-40%ish?
Perhaps I overegged the recognition factor slightly, but I still think it's a biggie, but as you say the proof of the pudding will be more evident soon!
Of course, that's still not to say that if Gray's personal approval rate improved significantly it would help Labour, because the current figures suggest that most of it's support is for the party anyway.
So paradoxically the recognition factor from the hustings could help his own personal approval ratings while his performance could be detrimental to Labour overall, if that makes sense!
Lol were you asleep when Iain Gray admitted that council tax would have gone up under Labour - and by more than 3 per cent each year (as that was the notional increase funded by the Scottish Government which Gray said was not enough!)
I think you blinked and missed Labour losing the election.
And weren't even SNP council administrations complaining that the freeze wasn't fully funded?
And they were having to implement cuts as a consequence? And that was even before the 'Westminster cuts' were on the agenda at the national level.
And where does the funding come for the freeze anyway, assuming it's fully funded? Oh aye, from the taxpayer!
By the way, I wasn't asleep Indy, just not paying that much attention!!
Post a Comment