Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:
Using ONS 2020 and England data....
The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
Interesting that the 90+ age group has levelled off some way behind the others, at a guess, this might be because a significate proportion of that age group has died since receiving there second does? if that's not the reason what might be?
Doctors not doing house calls to vaccinate the housebound?
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
There’s also plenty of more libertarian-thinking Conservatives, who have been waiting for the Lib Dems to start opposing things from the civil liberties angle, rather than concentrating most of their efforts on opposing the result of a referendum.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
You understand "once bitten, twice shy?"
There is zero prospect of Ed Davey even providing succour to the Tories if they attempted to cling to power having just lost the election. Pretty much everyone in politics barring you and the other remaining Peppa fanbois see the Tories as a Clear and Present Danger to the UK.
As you want to scrap the UK I understand why you like them, but the din from people disgusted by the government and their machinations is starting to sound like a Boney M ode to Rasputin.
I'm a bigger believer in mathematics than I am trying to understand what Ed Davey is thinking. If the mathematics means the Conservatives are the only plausible government then your coalition of chaos can go whistle.
If the Conservatives are on 310-315 seats after the election then the Opposition parties will go into talks with each other but all it takes is any party to make what the other parties consider an "unreasonable" demand and the whole thing will fall apart and the Conservatives will continue as a minority government.
The SNP would obviously demand an independence referendum, the Lib Dems would demand electoral reform, the Labour left and right will make their own demands and without an agreement the Conservatives will remain in Downing Street just as Brown did until an alternative was agreed.
Whilst I understand the scenario you are portraying, it just doesn't exist in the real world. In 2010 the Labour government was tired and unpopular, Cameron looked fresh faced and moderate. Compare and contrast to now and what a Johnson government would look like going into that election.
There is right and wrong in politics. Just because Peppa thinks he can do what he likes and has corrupted this intake of Tories to the same doesn't mean others will support it. If Peppa is gone and we have Sunak, then perhaps a deal could be done. With Johnson? Absolutely zero chance.
Mathematics matters more than what people say pre-election and Johnson can go following the election if that means the Tories keep office. He won't want to be Leader of the Opposition anyway, so if the price of the Tories staying in Office is his resignation that's a price he won't have any choice but to agree to at the time.
The other big difference between the scenario I paint and 2010 is that in 2010 Labour weren't just tired but a long way behind in both votes and seats. If the Tories are on 310-315 seats then the odds are high the Tories will have won most votes and most seats. So they won't be "losers" in the same way that Brown was.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Non SNP Scots are not truly Scottish either according to the Nationalists, especially Scottish Conservatives
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
It should finish Raab. In truth it should finish Johnson too, but don't hold your breath.
And where is bloody Starmer in all this? This is the one thing he is meant to be any good at is holding people to account for criminal and quasi criminal conduct. And not a peep.
Someone needs to join the dots between Raab's slow responses and when he was on holiday....
When you look around at the generally crap performance of most ministries, one wonders who is more to blame? The ministers or the civil servants?
Seems clear to me the FCO is a shadow of its former self. Where were they in Oct 2019 when the virus first shut down Wuhan? Why was pb ahead of them in Jan/Feb on what was happening in China? How did they drop the ball so catastrophically in Afghanistan and have no inkling of what would unfold, when the French did?
I’ll tell you why. Because they’ve become obsessed with trade and terrorism. Concerning.
I’m not sure the FCO have ever been good. Not in my living memory, anyway.
Also, their budget was gutted from 2010. William Hague wasn’t actually very good.
I’d add that Boris has made it worse by merging FCO and DfID. DfID was considered a well run unit with high performance/morale.
The merger might have made sense on paper, but culture > accounting.
The chap who wrote the report made it clear that DfID staff were 'not happy' about FCO processes.
Gloomy messages coming from UK gov about the new variants transmissibility.
Seems to be against general mood music - I had thought a more transmissible virus meant a less serious one in terms of health outcome..
Transmissibility and health outcomes aren't necessarily linked, so in the absence of any information about the latter, we have to assume that high transmission is bad until we can prove otherwise.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
"and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism."
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
They don't but Starmer would demand the SNP vote on English laws in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise Starmer would effectively only be PM in terms of defence and foreign affairs and some tax. The Tories would still have a majority on most English only legislation and it would be chaos.
A win for Leave at Sindyref2 would then mean the Tories returned to power automatically once Scottish MPs left the Commons unless Starmer could get the SNP to back PR first and then call a snap general election before they left
Could Labour even manage to march all their own backbenchers through the lobbies in support of a Scottish referendum? It would only need a handful to be against it.
If I’m not mistaken, last time there was no vote in the UK Parliament with a Section 30 order passed by the executive, transferring the power to the Scottish Parliament.
Wiki reckons it was an Order-in-Council, that did go through Parliament.
The two governments signed the Edinburgh Agreement, which allowed for the temporary transfer of legal authority. Per the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK government drafted an Order in Council granting the Scottish Parliament the necessary powers to hold, on or before 31 December 2014, an independence referendum. The draft Order was approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, and the Order ("The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013"), was approved by Queen Elizabeth II at a meeting of the Privy Council on 12 February 2013.
Not sure if it could be done without Parliament, especially if the Lords wanted to specifically oppose the process.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
You understand "once bitten, twice shy?"
There is zero prospect of Ed Davey even providing succour to the Tories if they attempted to cling to power having just lost the election. Pretty much everyone in politics barring you and the other remaining Peppa fanbois see the Tories as a Clear and Present Danger to the UK.
As you want to scrap the UK I understand why you like them, but the din from people disgusted by the government and their machinations is starting to sound like a Boney M ode to Rasputin.
I'm a bigger believer in mathematics than I am trying to understand what Ed Davey is thinking. If the mathematics means the Conservatives are the only plausible government then your coalition of chaos can go whistle.
If the Conservatives are on 310-315 seats after the election then the Opposition parties will go into talks with each other but all it takes is any party to make what the other parties consider an "unreasonable" demand and the whole thing will fall apart and the Conservatives will continue as a minority government.
The SNP would obviously demand an independence referendum, the Lib Dems would demand electoral reform, the Labour left and right will make their own demands and without an agreement the Conservatives will remain in Downing Street just as Brown did until an alternative was agreed.
Whilst I understand the scenario you are portraying, it just doesn't exist in the real world. In 2010 the Labour government was tired and unpopular, Cameron looked fresh faced and moderate. Compare and contrast to now and what a Johnson government would look like going into that election.
There is right and wrong in politics. Just because Peppa thinks he can do what he likes and has corrupted this intake of Tories to the same doesn't mean others will support it. If Peppa is gone and we have Sunak, then perhaps a deal could be done. With Johnson? Absolutely zero chance.
Mathematics matters more than what people say pre-election and Johnson can go following the election if that means the Tories keep office. He won't want to be Leader of the Opposition anyway, so if the price of the Tories staying in Office is his resignation that's a price he won't have any choice but to agree to at the time.
The other big difference between the scenario I paint and 2010 is that in 2010 Labour weren't just tired but a long way behind in both votes and seats. If the Tories are on 310-315 seats then the odds are high the Tories will have won most votes and most seats. So they won't be "losers" in the same way that Brown was.
I happen to be with Phil on this point. If the Tories have most seats, and, crucially, most votes also, then they have a strong moral case to continue in office. They, unlike Labour in 2010 (who had neither) will move heaven and earth to stay in power. They'll ditch anyone and anything to be at the top table cos they are ruthless. That's why they keep winning. And the LD's are even more untrustworthy and are burdened with a huge amount of ruth. If the SNP don't push for Independence, what are they for? I can see it.
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
It should finish Raab. In truth it should finish Johnson too, but don't hold your breath.
And where is bloody Starmer in all this? This is the one thing he is meant to be any good at is holding people to account for criminal and quasi criminal conduct. And not a peep.
It seems like a prime opportunity for Lammy to prove himself as Shadow FS. I've taken about half an hour to read that summary, and there are a good half dozen points which he should be raising/debating on the Today program tomorrow morning. It's a complicated story, and the withdrawal form Kabul was unavoidably chaotic, but the detailed and well structured evidence submitted by Raphael Marshall points to several glaring failures of either/both judgment and/or leadership.
Or perhaps Starmer should just hire @Cyclefree to do the job.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
It should finish Raab. In truth it should finish Johnson too, but don't hold your breath.
And where is bloody Starmer in all this? This is the one thing he is meant to be any good at is holding people to account for criminal and quasi criminal conduct. And not a peep.
It seems like a prime opportunity for Lammy to prove himself as Shadow FS. I've taken about half an hour to read that summary, and there are a good half dozen points which he should be raising/debating on the Today program tomorrow morning. It's a complicated story, and the withdrawal form Kabul was unavoidably chaotic, but the detailed and well structured evidence submitted by Raphael Marshall points to several glaring failures of either/both judgment and/or leadership.
Or perhaps Starmer should just hire @Cyclefree to do the job.
Emily getting stuck in, per the Telegraph
Labour: Dominic Raab should be ashamed of himself Labour's Shadow Attorney General has said that Dominic Raab should be "ashamed of himself" over his handling of Afghanistan.
Speaking on Sky News Emily Thornberry criticised the former Foreign Secretary's behaviour during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
She said: "There is a question about his ability to lead and make decisions."
She added: "Quite frankly he should be ashamed of himself.
When asked if he shouldn't be in his current position, she replied: "of course I'm saying that he shouldn't be Justice Secretary."
Also
"Claims that Boris Johnson ordered the rescue of animals from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover are "entirely untrue", Downing Street has said."
Marshall says the Europe minister's request was rejected, para 210. So if Downing Street deny they overruled that there's a bit of explaining they need to do as to why the rescue then happened. Are they going to say Raab oked it?
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party. 2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble). 3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns. 4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
Telegraph getting confused? (In fairness, the liveblog may well have contained a story about Zahawi, but it's unfortunate to illustrate something apparently mainly about Javid with a photo of Zahawi)
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
You understand "once bitten, twice shy?"
There is zero prospect of Ed Davey even providing succour to the Tories if they attempted to cling to power having just lost the election. Pretty much everyone in politics barring you and the other remaining Peppa fanbois see the Tories as a Clear and Present Danger to the UK.
As you want to scrap the UK I understand why you like them, but the din from people disgusted by the government and their machinations is starting to sound like a Boney M ode to Rasputin.
I'm a bigger believer in mathematics than I am trying to understand what Ed Davey is thinking. If the mathematics means the Conservatives are the only plausible government then your coalition of chaos can go whistle.
If the Conservatives are on 310-315 seats after the election then the Opposition parties will go into talks with each other but all it takes is any party to make what the other parties consider an "unreasonable" demand and the whole thing will fall apart and the Conservatives will continue as a minority government.
The SNP would obviously demand an independence referendum, the Lib Dems would demand electoral reform, the Labour left and right will make their own demands and without an agreement the Conservatives will remain in Downing Street just as Brown did until an alternative was agreed.
Whilst I understand the scenario you are portraying, it just doesn't exist in the real world. In 2010 the Labour government was tired and unpopular, Cameron looked fresh faced and moderate. Compare and contrast to now and what a Johnson government would look like going into that election.
There is right and wrong in politics. Just because Peppa thinks he can do what he likes and has corrupted this intake of Tories to the same doesn't mean others will support it. If Peppa is gone and we have Sunak, then perhaps a deal could be done. With Johnson? Absolutely zero chance.
Mathematics matters more than what people say pre-election and Johnson can go following the election if that means the Tories keep office. He won't want to be Leader of the Opposition anyway, so if the price of the Tories staying in Office is his resignation that's a price he won't have any choice but to agree to at the time.
The other big difference between the scenario I paint and 2010 is that in 2010 Labour weren't just tired but a long way behind in both votes and seats. If the Tories are on 310-315 seats then the odds are high the Tories will have won most votes and most seats. So they won't be "losers" in the same way that Brown was.
I happen to be with Phil on this point. If the Tories have most seats, and, crucially, most votes also, then they have a strong moral case to continue in office. They, unlike Labour in 2010 (who had neither) will move heaven and earth to stay in power. They'll ditch anyone and anything to be at the top table cos they are ruthless. That's why they keep winning. And the LD's are even more untrustworthy and are burdened with a huge amount of ruth. If the SNP don't push for Independence, what are they for? I can see it.
Whoever can cobble together a HoC majority should be in government. Morality doesn't come into it.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Sorry, no. Starmer simply won't concede IndyRef. You only have to read the views of Ian Murray, the Shadow SoS for Scotland and Labour's last Scottish MP. Scottish Labour would simply love the SNP to cock around and put the Tories back in. Won't happen. I don't think you are taking sufficient account of likely Scottish public opinion. The only folk who would back the approach you outline are the hardline Nats who are obsessed with Indy but, even now, are a relatively small proportion of the voting public.
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
Cats and dogs in the country rather than brown people? Can only play well. Boris knows the voters.
Johnson's Afghan Ark will play well among the shitmunchers. It's only tory members and their fellow travellers who like to vice semaphore with a perfomative disregard for animal welfare.
"the protection of animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan"
1 PARA shot anything with four legs on sight in Basra. They once raided a compound based on shit intel, found no weapons and shot all the animals as a consolation prize. An act of goodwill which somewhat incensed the ungrateful Basrans and the incident eventually led to the battle of Majar al Kabir where 6 RMP were killed.
"the protection of animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan"
1 PARA shot anything with four legs on sight in Basra. They once raided a compound based on shit intel, found no weapons and shot all the animals as a consolation prize. An act of goodwill which somewhat incensed the ungrateful Basrans and the incident eventually led to the battle of Majar al Kabir where 6 RMP were killed.
The works of Saint Blair.
TBF 1 Para have form irrespective of the theatre of deployment.
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party. 2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble). 3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns. 4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
1-3 possible, 4 likely still requires some further Labour gains in the Redwall as even Labour + SNP is unlikely to have a majority at the next general election without the LDs too
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
Cats and dogs in the country rather than brown people? Can only play well. Boris knows the voters.
Johnson's Afghan Ark will play well among the shitmunchers. It's only tory members and their fellow travellers who like to vice semaphore with a perfomative disregard for animal welfare.
In English, does that mean you are on the side of the doggies?
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party. 2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble). 3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns. 4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
Anything is possible, but I'd say its very unlikely.
1&2 are illogical. If you're going to grant a referendum, then you may as well have a formal agreement to do so. It'd be a 2017 DUP style agreement not a formal coalition though.
However ignoring the no formal agreement part of 1, I think 2-4 are very possible.
Interesting short listen from a Dr in South Africa. At 4.14 she confirms that at her hospital in Cape Town which is the 2nd largest in South Africa they do not have a single Covid patient in ICU or the HDU. As hundreds of thousands of South African's would now have Omicron that is amazing news.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
You understand "once bitten, twice shy?"
There is zero prospect of Ed Davey even providing succour to the Tories if they attempted to cling to power having just lost the election. Pretty much everyone in politics barring you and the other remaining Peppa fanbois see the Tories as a Clear and Present Danger to the UK.
As you want to scrap the UK I understand why you like them, but the din from people disgusted by the government and their machinations is starting to sound like a Boney M ode to Rasputin.
I'm a bigger believer in mathematics than I am trying to understand what Ed Davey is thinking. If the mathematics means the Conservatives are the only plausible government then your coalition of chaos can go whistle.
If the Conservatives are on 310-315 seats after the election then the Opposition parties will go into talks with each other but all it takes is any party to make what the other parties consider an "unreasonable" demand and the whole thing will fall apart and the Conservatives will continue as a minority government.
The SNP would obviously demand an independence referendum, the Lib Dems would demand electoral reform, the Labour left and right will make their own demands and without an agreement the Conservatives will remain in Downing Street just as Brown did until an alternative was agreed.
Whilst I understand the scenario you are portraying, it just doesn't exist in the real world. In 2010 the Labour government was tired and unpopular, Cameron looked fresh faced and moderate. Compare and contrast to now and what a Johnson government would look like going into that election.
There is right and wrong in politics. Just because Peppa thinks he can do what he likes and has corrupted this intake of Tories to the same doesn't mean others will support it. If Peppa is gone and we have Sunak, then perhaps a deal could be done. With Johnson? Absolutely zero chance.
Mathematics matters more than what people say pre-election and Johnson can go following the election if that means the Tories keep office. He won't want to be Leader of the Opposition anyway, so if the price of the Tories staying in Office is his resignation that's a price he won't have any choice but to agree to at the time.
The other big difference between the scenario I paint and 2010 is that in 2010 Labour weren't just tired but a long way behind in both votes and seats. If the Tories are on 310-315 seats then the odds are high the Tories will have won most votes and most seats. So they won't be "losers" in the same way that Brown was.
I happen to be with Phil on this point. If the Tories have most seats, and, crucially, most votes also, then they have a strong moral case to continue in office. They, unlike Labour in 2010 (who had neither) will move heaven and earth to stay in power. They'll ditch anyone and anything to be at the top table cos they are ruthless. That's why they keep winning. And the LD's are even more untrustworthy and are burdened with a huge amount of ruth. If the SNP don't push for Independence, what are they for? I can see it.
Whoever can cobble together a HoC majority should be in government. Morality doesn't come into it.
It does only in the sense that more Labour votes, but fewer seats, would allow the smaller parties political cover for wriggle room. And increase the chances of internal dissent. Perhaps moral was the wrong choice of word. More realpolitik.
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party. 2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble). 3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns. 4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
Anything is possible, but I'd say its very unlikely.
1&2 are illogical. If you're going to grant a referendum, then you may as well have a formal agreement to do so. It'd be a 2017 DUP style agreement not a formal coalition though.
However ignoring the no formal agreement part of 1, I think 2-4 are very possible.
This is all nonsense. A second IndyRef would take , say two years to negotiate and hold, would completely dominate that period of Starmer's Government, and be an open goal for the Tories. No way will he concede it. Fantasy.
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party. 2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble). 3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns. 4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
1-3 possible, 4 likely still requires some further Labour gains in the Redwall as even Labour + SNP is unlikely to have a majority at the next general election without the LDs too
I agree with that, but I think that if Starmer had succeeded in getting through 1-3 (and governed competently) that would be quite an achievement, so he would gain additional English seats as well as the SNP seats I referred to.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
"the protection of animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan"
1 PARA shot anything with four legs on sight in Basra. They once raided a compound based on shit intel, found no weapons and shot all the animals as a consolation prize. An act of goodwill which somewhat incensed the ungrateful Basrans and the incident eventually led to the battle of Majar al Kabir where 6 RMP were killed.
The works of Saint Blair.
TBF 1 Para have form irrespective of the theatre of deployment.
They even trashed Aldershot a fair few times during my youth, clearly didn’t get the memo that you don’t piss where you eat.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
Yes, it's interesting: my civil liberties preferences haven't really been a deciding factor in the last few elections: no parties have been liberal enough for me, but before 2019 I've found none of them in practice egregiously illiberal. I'm still not really sure whether I'm a liberal or a libertarian. I'm coming around to the idea of a written constitution which would guarantee liberties, to try to stop some of the excesses of the state over the last two years (and also to set out the rules of politics rather more clearly). But I'm also a firm believer that parliament should not be able to bind its successor. And I don't think I can believe in both of these things.
To give the LDs some credit, they have at least opposed successive extensions of emergency powers by the government.
To go back to kinabalu's point, I'm disappointed - how can anyone not be? - at the ethics and competence on display from this government (you could cut and paste any one of Cyclefree's header pieces in here), but I don't think they are necessarily notably worse than what we would get from anyone else (and Tice's lot, in particular, are an unknown quantity here).
The best bet on this market is surely to Lay the Tories. Governments shouldn't win by-elections, especially in these circumstances.
Labour really should be picking up this seat. They need a smaller swing to gain this seat than other by-elections have seen before, they're the so-called Opposition, they're second-placed and they've regularly polled over 30% in this seat before.
If like in OBS they don't achieve a good swing then something is very, very wrong with Keir Starmer's leadership.
You're talking like a Tory Party operative doing expectations management.
Perhaps Starmer has realised that the optics of his party going from a strong second to losing its deposit in NS will not produce good headlines and would in fact be ridiculed?
It's a tricky one. Lab and LD simply must team up for the GE in order to GTTO. But Lab don't want to allow the LDs even a sniff at becoming the main non-Tory party in large tracts of the country. Which is one of the prime short to medium term goals of the LDs. It's why they went with giving Johnson his Dec 2019 gift of a GE. So, they have to work together, and I desperately hope they find a way to work together, since years and years of Johnson truly doesn't bear thinking about, but I don't know how they'll manage it. Perhaps Nick P has a view on this.
I hear you on Johnson but what makes you think that liberals want to Get The Collectivists In any more than they want to Get The Tories Out?
An ideologically serious 'classic liberal' like you perhaps wouldn't, stocky, but I'm more thinking of that large section of the electorate who don't have such moorings, who are just what you'd call 'moderate' in their politics and are looking for a government who'll run things competently and with a degree of seriousness & honesty. I think this will be the main opposition pitch at the election. I'm not expecting much by way of policy differences. There'll be some but it'll be small beer, nothing like it was in 2017 and (esp) 2019. Could be wrong but that's my strong sense. "Johnson out, joke not funny anymore", this is what I reckon the theme'll be. As GE19 was the Brexit election. GE24 will be the "Boris" election. "Who's still laughing?" Will there be enough apolitical gigglers left (when added to hard nut leavers and regular true blues) to give him another term?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Sorry, no. Starmer simply won't concede IndyRef. You only have to read the views of Ian Murray, the Shadow SoS for Scotland and Labour's last Scottish MP. Scottish Labour would simply love the SNP to cock around and put the Tories back in. Won't happen. I don't think you are taking sufficient account of likely Scottish public opinion. The only folk who would back the approach you outline are the hardline Nats who are obsessed with Indy but, even now, are a relatively small proportion of the voting public.
SNP are desperate for another Tory outright win.
I think you're kidding yourselves to think that the Scottish public is desperate to have Labour in Downing Street instead of the Tories. If they were, they'd be voting Labour.
The hardline Nats are the SNP core and they're getting 50% of the vote. If you think that the SNP on 50% of the Scottish vote will kowtow to whatever some nobody like Ian Murray has to say then I think you've got another thing coming.
What you're saying is about as plausible as if Nigel Farage's UKIP had won all the Home Counties seats in 2015 and then Cameron said "put me back in power but there's no EU referendum" and thinking that Farage wouldn't say no and just let Ed Miliband become PM if that's what it took to get his referendum.
The SNP exist to get that referendum and they've got half the vote. They're not giving up on that easily.
To be fair, it's not a LabourList poll, it's a report of what the party claims its internal polling is showing, reported without endorsement (https://labourlist.org/2021/12/tory-lead-in-north-shropshire-narrowed-to-seven-points-internal-polling-suggests/). It would be odd if they refused to report it. I very much doubt if this is more than canvass returns, though, as I presume are the LibDem claims. So I'm not sure they are putting credibility on the line any more than we do when we highlight the LibDem statements (the LibDems do have some credibility in this from previous efforts). It's what parties tend to do in the absence of a formal pact, and what was striking until now was its absence.
Nonetheless, it's evident that Labour is now making an effort, with various senior Labour people (interestingly on the centrist wing of the party who you might have thought would be keenest on a tacit alliance) talking up the campaign. My guess is that up to Bexley they were totally focused there, and have now shifted attention.
We need a proper pact is my conclusion FWIW.
As long as the centre left has a majority of the votes (Lab+LD+SNP+Green) as it almost always does but prefers faction both within (Labour) and between it will usually be in opposition.
The thought that Labour may well prefer a Tory win to an LD win in NS is revealing.
My thought are that is may be a bit of both 2 and 3 (and 1 even) but it is unlikely to be mostly 3, I say this because we can look at the ratio of known infections to known Hospitalizations, in SA there was an ongoing tradition of Delta, with low and steady numbers, and we know how many of those where hospitalised, and there are probably a simmiler number getting delta every day now. Most/all the growth over the last 2 weeks or so in SA has been Omicron, and its growing in the same population with the same amount of vaccination/natural immunity but does not appear to have the same ratio of infection to hospitalisation.
Unless we are hypnotising that Delta is only(mostly) being infected in unwaxed/no prior-infection people, but that Omicron is escaping the vaccine and natural immunity enough to transmit well in those people, but then to not harm them enough to give bad outcomes.
Yes, you might be right. I think we'll have to wait for the UK data, once there's a large enough number of cases who have been infected long enough to potentially show up in the hospitalisation figures.
10 days ago we had 2 Omicron cases. We're not nearly far enough along to check hospitalisation, let alone death effects.
What do you want to do? WFH if possible? Probably doable. Close schools? Not great. Close hospitality? No money to pay for that. Lockdown, see last answer.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Gloomy messages coming from UK gov about the new variants transmissibility.
Seems to be against general mood music - I had thought a more transmissible virus meant a less serious one in terms of health outcome..
There is no link between transmissibility and health outcome. It looks like omicron has a short incubation time, and this may explain the steepness of the curve (remembering the x-axis is time, if people become infectious quicker, it spreads quicker too). We still await the studies that will say to press the panic button or not. I'm still hopeful for the majority of vaccinated and boosted people, this will not be an issue.
The best bet on this market is surely to Lay the Tories. Governments shouldn't win by-elections, especially in these circumstances.
Labour really should be picking up this seat. They need a smaller swing to gain this seat than other by-elections have seen before, they're the so-called Opposition, they're second-placed and they've regularly polled over 30% in this seat before.
If like in OBS they don't achieve a good swing then something is very, very wrong with Keir Starmer's leadership.
You're talking like a Tory Party operative doing expectations management.
He's talking like a Tory desperate to have the opposition vote split.
The Sunday papers were full of reports from journalists both on the ground and in London of "Tory jitters" in the runup to this by-election. It isn't any electoral threat from Labour that they are worrying about.
The Tories love having Labour as their opponents, since for very many of their held seats it keeps them safe: the balance between the two parties may rise and fall in line with national trends, but there are very many seats away from British towns that Labour can never win, even in the best realistically possible year.
Bottom line for me now is work together to GTTO in 24 and then electoral reform. I love FPTP but I don't love it quite enough to pay the price of structural Tory hegemony.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
The best bet on this market is surely to Lay the Tories. Governments shouldn't win by-elections, especially in these circumstances.
Labour really should be picking up this seat. They need a smaller swing to gain this seat than other by-elections have seen before, they're the so-called Opposition, they're second-placed and they've regularly polled over 30% in this seat before.
If like in OBS they don't achieve a good swing then something is very, very wrong with Keir Starmer's leadership.
You're talking like a Tory Party operative doing expectations management.
Perhaps Starmer has realised that the optics of his party going from a strong second to losing its deposit in NS will not produce good headlines and would in fact be ridiculed?
It's a tricky one. Lab and LD simply must team up for the GE in order to GTTO. But Lab don't want to allow the LDs even a sniff at becoming the main non-Tory party in large tracts of the country. Which is one of the prime short to medium term goals of the LDs. It's why they went with giving Johnson his Dec 2019 gift of a GE. So, they have to work together, and I desperately hope they find a way to work together, since years and years of Johnson truly doesn't bear thinking about, but I don't know how they'll manage it. Perhaps Nick P has a view on this.
I hear you on Johnson but what makes you think that liberals want to Get The Collectivists In any more than they want to Get The Tories Out?
An ideologically serious 'classic liberal' like you perhaps wouldn't, stocky, but I'm more thinking of that large section of the electorate who don't have such moorings, who are just what you'd call 'moderate' in their politics and are looking for a government who'll run things competently and with a degree of seriousness & honesty. I think this will be the main opposition pitch at the election. I'm not expecting much by way of policy differences. There'll be some but it'll be small beer, nothing like it was in 2017 and (esp) 2019. Could be wrong but that's my strong sense. "Johnson out, joke not funny anymore", this is what I reckon the theme'll be. As GE19 was the Brexit election. GE24 will be the "Boris" election. "Who's still laughing?" Will there be enough apolitical gigglers left (when added to hard nut leavers and regular true blues) to give him another term?
Very good. "Johnson out, joke not funny anymore" combined with Starmer's rejuvenated, competent-looking alternative option could work.
Gloomy messages coming from UK gov about the new variants transmissibility.
Seems to be against general mood music - I had thought a more transmissible virus meant a less serious one in terms of health outcome..
There is no link between transmissibility and health outcome. It looks like omicron has a short incubation time, and this may explain the steepness of the curve (remembering the x-axis is time, if people become infectious quicker, it spreads quicker too). We still await the studies that will say to press the panic button or not. I'm still hopeful for the majority of vaccinated and boosted people, this will not be an issue.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
1. Tories want a split anti-Tory vote in the by-election so that they can hold the seat. No surprise there.
2. Tories are the experts on any future agreement, formal or informal, between a Labour minority government and the SNP. This is not a surprise either.
Ben Slater (who was in Afghanistan and tried to get his own staff out - captured and tortured by Taliban because he was stuck at the border too long) - commented that the British Embassies in Islamabad & Doha were on the ball and proactive, but as soon as anyone had to ask London (FCDO or Home Office) anything everything slowed significantly or stopped.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
Yes, it's interesting: my civil liberties preferences haven't really been a deciding factor in the last few elections: no parties have been liberal enough for me, but before 2019 I've found none of them in practice egregiously illiberal. I'm still not really sure whether I'm a liberal or a libertarian. I'm coming around to the idea of a written constitution which would guarantee liberties, to try to stop some of the excesses of the state over the last two years (and also to set out the rules of politics rather more clearly). But I'm also a firm believer that parliament should not be able to bind its successor. And I don't think I can believe in both of these things.
To give the LDs some credit, they have at least opposed successive extensions of emergency powers by the government.
To go back to kinabalu's point, I'm disappointed - how can anyone not be? - at the ethics and competence on display from this government (you could cut and paste any one of Cyclefree's header pieces in here), but I don't think they are necessarily notably worse than what we would get from anyone else (and Tice's lot, in particular, are an unknown quantity here).
"I'm also a firm believer that parliament should not be able to bind its successor"
Your bind is solved by thinking about it this way: the winning party can tinker but not with the overarching system that they operate under: our wonderful liberal democracy.
I think that's why many liberals are not too fussed about whether they are governed by a moderate CP or a moderate LP. Not much can go wrong when the overarching liberal system, with all the rights and freedoms this entails, is intact.
This complacency has been shattered over the last two years. And I feel it as keenly as you do.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
I wouldn't underestimate how disliked Nippy Sweetie is.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
I think the contrast was with the Indian variant - rapidly changed, with the Kent variant, used extensively.
But yes, its easy to find examples of ALL politicians being biased. Its what they do.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Bless, you believe Boris Johnson, I mean he's never lied in the past has he?
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Good thread - worth reading in full.
As Mrs Thatcher wisely observed "every Prime Minister needs a Willie".
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Sorry, no. Starmer simply won't concede IndyRef. You only have to read the views of Ian Murray, the Shadow SoS for Scotland and Labour's last Scottish MP. Scottish Labour would simply love the SNP to cock around and put the Tories back in. Won't happen. I don't think you are taking sufficient account of likely Scottish public opinion. The only folk who would back the approach you outline are the hardline Nats who are obsessed with Indy but, even now, are a relatively small proportion of the voting public.
SNP are desperate for another Tory outright win.
I think you're kidding yourselves to think that the Scottish public is desperate to have Labour in Downing Street instead of the Tories. If they were, they'd be voting Labour.
The hardline Nats are the SNP core and they're getting 50% of the vote. If you think that the SNP on 50% of the Scottish vote will kowtow to whatever some nobody like Ian Murray has to say then I think you've got another thing coming.
What you're saying is about as plausible as if Nigel Farage's UKIP had won all the Home Counties seats in 2015 and then Cameron said "put me back in power but there's no EU referendum" and thinking that Farage wouldn't say no and just let Ed Miliband become PM if that's what it took to get his referendum.
The SNP exist to get that referendum and they've got half the vote. They're not giving up on that easily.
Repeated polling has shown that IndyRef is not a priority up here, even for many people who are, in principle, pro-Indy.
There is very little downside to Starmer offering SNP devo-max and an enormous downside to him conceding IndyRef2.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Bless, you believe Boris Johnson, I mean he's never lied in the past has he?
I did not say I believe him, I am saying he is so forcefully denying it, that his accusers need for someone credible to explain the actual day/nights event
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Or he spouts untruths as naturally, confidently and without forethought as he breathes. One of the two.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Nope. On animals the ball is in his court. We know someone significantly senior to the minister for Europe ordered the evacuation. Who, if not him?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
"the protection of animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan"
1 PARA shot anything with four legs on sight in Basra. They once raided a compound based on shit intel, found no weapons and shot all the animals as a consolation prize. An act of goodwill which somewhat incensed the ungrateful Basrans and the incident eventually led to the battle of Majar al Kabir where 6 RMP were killed.
The works of Saint Blair.
TBF 1 Para have form irrespective of the theatre of deployment.
The 2018 Booker Prize winner Milkman (which is a great book btw) includes a scene where British soldiers in Northern Ireland round up and shoot all the dogs in a Catholic neighbourhood, ostensibly because the dogs are giving the soldiers' positions away to snipers.
The book is fiction of course but the scene is somehow plausible. Anyone know if anything like that actually happened in NI?
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant
Is this the first time you've encountered Boris Johnson?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
The opposite I would say. They put out propaganda featuring English incomers who now support the party and independence. The government's whole approach to non-Scots is to make them "new Scots" from day 1 of their arrival.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
The opposite I would say. They put out propaganda featuring English incomers who now support the party and independence. The government's whole approach to non-Scots is to make them "new Scots" from day 1 of their arrival.
They'll need them given the mass exodus of true Scots from Scotland on day 1
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
I wouldn't underestimate how disliked Nippy Sweetie is.
Really? You may be underestimating how much you're looking at things through your own specifically tinted specs.
Boris Johnson confirms next Monday as the day the boosters rollout will be expanded, telling @carldinnen: "Of course, from Monday we will be contracting the interval so you go down to three months and that will lead to a big uptick in the programme."
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Or he spouts untruths as naturally, confidently and without forethought as he breathes. One of the two.
Surely its only a lie if he actually remembers what happened in the past.
Note - this is not a get out clause for Boris - If he isn't lying I'm saying his memory and mental abilities are now so bad that he really shouldn't be PM.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
His pitch is "people like me ought not to be inconvenienced in the slightest. An outrageous infringement on Liberty which cannot stand!!!"
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
It is the “secret Santa” detail in the Times about the Downing St party last 18 Dec that is a serious problem for the government. Because that would indicate it was properly planned, and should have been cancelled under Tier 3 rules. It is clear this story is not going away https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1468168811161522182/photo/1
Oh bullshit!
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
Boris just now on Sky confidently rebutting the charges on the alleged party and also very much rejecting the accusation that animals were prioritised over people in Afghanistan
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
Nope. On animals the ball is in his court. We know someone significantly senior to the minister for Europe ordered the evacuation. Who, if not him?
More senior than Johnson would be his wife! Go girls 👭
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
There is however something rather Stalinesque about the efforts by a few PB right-wingers to re-write history and pretend the Nazis were left wing...
Presumably in their eyes right-wing extremism has never led to any nastiness, never - oh no!
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Sorry, no. Starmer simply won't concede IndyRef. You only have to read the views of Ian Murray, the Shadow SoS for Scotland and Labour's last Scottish MP. Scottish Labour would simply love the SNP to cock around and put the Tories back in. Won't happen. I don't think you are taking sufficient account of likely Scottish public opinion. The only folk who would back the approach you outline are the hardline Nats who are obsessed with Indy but, even now, are a relatively small proportion of the voting public.
SNP are desperate for another Tory outright win.
I think you're kidding yourselves to think that the Scottish public is desperate to have Labour in Downing Street instead of the Tories. If they were, they'd be voting Labour.
The hardline Nats are the SNP core and they're getting 50% of the vote. If you think that the SNP on 50% of the Scottish vote will kowtow to whatever some nobody like Ian Murray has to say then I think you've got another thing coming.
What you're saying is about as plausible as if Nigel Farage's UKIP had won all the Home Counties seats in 2015 and then Cameron said "put me back in power but there's no EU referendum" and thinking that Farage wouldn't say no and just let Ed Miliband become PM if that's what it took to get his referendum.
The SNP exist to get that referendum and they've got half the vote. They're not giving up on that easily.
Repeated polling has shown that IndyRef is not a priority up here, even for many people who are, in principle, pro-Indy.
There is very little downside to Starmer offering SNP devo-max and an enormous downside to him conceding IndyRef2.
Are you speaking as an SNP voter or as a voter for a party getting a fraction of the votes of the SNP up there?
There's very little downside for Sturgeon standing firm and saying she will put Starmer in Downing Street if he agrees to the Referendum. There's a lot of downside in being a Red Tory lickspittle who fails to get a referendum even when she's holding the balance of power.
It doesn't matter what Starmer wants or what his risk profile is. If the SNP have the votes, they call the shots.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
I wouldn't underestimate how disliked Nippy Sweetie is.
Really? You may be underestimating how much you're looking at things through your own specifically tinted specs.
6.4 million people in UK remain completely unvaccinated despite being eligible, data shows
More than ten per cent of the UK population eligible for vaccination are yet to receive their first dose, according to data analysed by i.
Around 6.4 million people have not yet had their first dose even though they are eligible. Major cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham have among the highest rates of unvaccinated people anywhere in the country.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Is the problem not that he isn't willing to tell his wife her ideas are stupid?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Is the problem not that he isn't willing to tell his wife her ideas are stupid?
The problem there is that Boris couldn't even find someone willing to tell his wife her ideas were stupid.
Comments
The other big difference between the scenario I paint and 2010 is that in 2010 Labour weren't just tired but a long way behind in both votes and seats. If the Tories are on 310-315 seats then the odds are high the Tories will have won most votes and most seats. So they won't be "losers" in the same way that Brown was.
Might? LOL
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
The two governments signed the Edinburgh Agreement, which allowed for the temporary transfer of legal authority. Per the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK government drafted an Order in Council granting the Scottish Parliament the necessary powers to hold, on or before 31 December 2014, an independence referendum. The draft Order was approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, and the Order ("The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013"), was approved by Queen Elizabeth II at a meeting of the Privy Council on 12 February 2013.
Not sure if it could be done without Parliament, especially if the Lords wanted to specifically oppose the process.
If the Tories have most seats, and, crucially, most votes also, then they have a strong moral case to continue in office.
They, unlike Labour in 2010 (who had neither) will move heaven and earth to stay in power. They'll ditch anyone and anything to be at the top table cos they are ruthless.
That's why they keep winning.
And the LD's are even more untrustworthy and are burdened with a huge amount of ruth.
If the SNP don't push for Independence, what are they for?
I can see it.
I've taken about half an hour to read that summary, and there are a good half dozen points which he should be raising/debating on the Today program tomorrow morning.
It's a complicated story, and the withdrawal form Kabul was unavoidably chaotic, but the detailed and well structured evidence submitted by Raphael Marshall points to several glaring failures of either/both judgment and/or leadership.
Or perhaps Starmer should just hire @Cyclefree to do the job.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1468195107539140613
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1468193259348447240
Labour: Dominic Raab should be ashamed of himself
Labour's Shadow Attorney General has said that Dominic Raab should be "ashamed of himself" over his handling of Afghanistan.
Speaking on Sky News Emily Thornberry criticised the former Foreign Secretary's behaviour during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
She said: "There is a question about his ability to lead and make decisions."
She added: "Quite frankly he should be ashamed of himself.
When asked if he shouldn't be in his current position, she replied: "of course I'm saying that he shouldn't be Justice Secretary."
Also
"Claims that Boris Johnson ordered the rescue of animals from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover are "entirely untrue", Downing Street has said."
Marshall says the Europe minister's request was rejected, para 210. So if Downing Street deny they overruled that there's a bit of explaining they need to do as to why the rescue then happened. Are they going to say Raab oked it?
1. Tories fail to get an overall majority at the GE; Starmer PM with no formal agreement with any other party.
2. Starmer grants a second Scottish referendum (obviously a huge gamble).
3. Scotland votes to remain in the UK - partly because it's looking pretty close as it is and with a non-Tory government some Scots are more willing to stay in the UK. Sturgeon resigns.
4. Starmer calls a second GE and gets a majority as Labour gains many seats back from the SNP - end of independence dreams (for a long time, anyway), and Sturgeon gone.
Telegraph getting confused?
(In fairness, the liveblog may well have contained a story about Zahawi, but it's unfortunate to illustrate something apparently mainly about Javid with a photo of Zahawi)
SNP are desperate for another Tory outright win.
50% of 2019 Labour voters however back allowing an indyref2 with only 23% opposed
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468184100116873219?s=20
1&2 are illogical. If you're going to grant a referendum, then you may as well have a formal agreement to do so. It'd be a 2017 DUP style agreement not a formal coalition though.
However ignoring the no formal agreement part of 1, I think 2-4 are very possible.
At 4.14 she confirms that at her hospital in Cape Town which is the 2nd largest in South Africa they do not have a single Covid patient in ICU or the HDU. As hundreds of thousands of South African's would now have Omicron that is amazing news.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062016977/what-has-south-africa-learned-about-the-omicron-variant?t=1638880946192
Perhaps moral was the wrong choice of word. More realpolitik.
I'm still not really sure whether I'm a liberal or a libertarian. I'm coming around to the idea of a written constitution which would guarantee liberties, to try to stop some of the excesses of the state over the last two years (and also to set out the rules of politics rather more clearly). But I'm also a firm believer that parliament should not be able to bind its successor. And I don't think I can believe in both of these things.
To give the LDs some credit, they have at least opposed successive extensions of emergency powers by the government.
To go back to kinabalu's point, I'm disappointed - how can anyone not be? - at the ethics and competence on display from this government (you could cut and paste any one of Cyclefree's header pieces in here), but I don't think they are necessarily notably worse than what we would get from anyone else (and Tice's lot, in particular, are an unknown quantity here).
The hardline Nats are the SNP core and they're getting 50% of the vote. If you think that the SNP on 50% of the Scottish vote will kowtow to whatever some nobody like Ian Murray has to say then I think you've got another thing coming.
What you're saying is about as plausible as if Nigel Farage's UKIP had won all the Home Counties seats in 2015 and then Cameron said "put me back in power but there's no EU referendum" and thinking that Farage wouldn't say no and just let Ed Miliband become PM if that's what it took to get his referendum.
The SNP exist to get that referendum and they've got half the vote. They're not giving up on that easily.
The thought that Labour may well prefer a Tory win to an LD win in NS is revealing.
61% believe rules were broken
72% feel it’s one rule for the Govt and another for everybody else
18% think Downing Street staff deserved their bash
- @SavantaComRes
- https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1468203591827656709
https://news.sky.com/story/chinese-scientists-spot-mysterious-hut-on-far-side-of-the-moon-12488964
Every company I know has always done a Secret Santa every year and last year was no exception. Did you partake in a Secret Santa last year Scott? I bet Peston did too, unless he's a Billy No Mates at ITV which is quite plausible.
There was nothing illegal about Secret Santa's last year.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
They see a rabbit rather than a man in the moon.
When you are looking for it, it is obvious btw.
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1468200559853416450
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-judge-disallows-ipad-pinch-to-zoom-read-the-bizarre-transcript/ )
He refuses twice to say there were no parties. He reverts to saying: "I am satisfied myself that all the guidelines were followed"
"What I can tell you" is govt is "getting on with the job"
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1468205581643231242
Pen Farthing turned up at the airport with animals and staff for his private plane, and they - the Taliban I think - wouldn't let the staff in.
He must be very certain he is correct to be so adamant, and it is time for those who say he is not to bring forward the evidence
1. Tories want a split anti-Tory vote in the by-election so that they can hold the seat. No surprise there.
2. Tories are the experts on any future agreement, formal or informal, between a Labour minority government and the SNP. This is not a surprise either.
Your bind is solved by thinking about it this way: the winning party can tinker but not with the overarching system that they operate under: our wonderful liberal democracy.
I think that's why many liberals are not too fussed about whether they are governed by a moderate CP or a moderate LP. Not much can go wrong when the overarching liberal system, with all the rights and freedoms this entails, is intact.
This complacency has been shattered over the last two years. And I feel it as keenly as you do.
As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please...
I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
But yes, its easy to find examples of ALL politicians being biased. Its what they do.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
As Mrs Thatcher wisely observed "every Prime Minister needs a Willie".
There is very little downside to Starmer offering SNP devo-max and an enormous downside to him conceding IndyRef2.
And first Apollo moon landing were told on the radio to look out for the “bunny girl”.
One of the two.
The book is fiction of course but the scene is somehow plausible. Anyone know if anything like that actually happened in NI?
That’s probably the most sense posted today, would you like me to translate it.
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians-political-figures/all
I'd imagine she's most unpopular with right wingers who wouldn't be voting for Labour in any circumstance.
@carldinnen: "Of course, from Monday we will be contracting the interval so you go down to three months and that will lead to a big uptick in the programme."
Note - this is not a get out clause for Boris - If he isn't lying I'm saying his memory and mental abilities are now so bad that he really shouldn't be PM.
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
Presumably in their eyes right-wing extremism has never led to any nastiness, never - oh no!
There's very little downside for Sturgeon standing firm and saying she will put Starmer in Downing Street if he agrees to the Referendum. There's a lot of downside in being a Red Tory lickspittle who fails to get a referendum even when she's holding the balance of power.
It doesn't matter what Starmer wants or what his risk profile is. If the SNP have the votes, they call the shots.
Not sure why an SNP Type would want to post that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10283501/Richard-E-Grant-wits-end-228-night-UK-hotel-quarantine.html
More than ten per cent of the UK population eligible for vaccination are yet to receive their first dose, according to data analysed by i.
Around 6.4 million people have not yet had their first dose even though they are eligible. Major cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham have among the highest rates of unvaccinated people anywhere in the country.
https://inews.co.uk/news/covid-vaccine-uk-people-completely-unvaccinated-booster-jab-programme-1338139
@ianvisits
·
1m
There definitely wasn't a party in 10 Downing Street on the 18th December 2020.
In totally unrelated news, 10 Downing Street was renumbered 3 Downing Street for one day last year.