Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why the next election might not be a 1997 redux – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Honestly, this is not that much of a drop - thank goodness it was enough in some tight races.

    How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.

    https://twitter.com/ahall_research/status/1626284078197772288

    I think 2.3% is quite a big deal in US politics, the voters there tend to be stickier than for instance in the UK
    Are the voters stickier? Or is it just that the world view of political parties is fundamentally different? I bet if we had a party in the UK that actively wanted to Christianize the education system, ban abortion and overturn elections they lose, than a lot of people would never vote for them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,775

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20

    And if they fail to get 50% of the vote at an election would that settle the issue for another generation?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    kle4 said:

    I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627223288232525825?s=20

    Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
    He was party leader in Westminster - a position not without responsibility - including removing some of their talent to the back benches because they thought for themselves and wouldn’t toe the Sturgeon line. Until that Cherry tweet I wasn’t aware of his faith - it never seemed to be brought up.

    Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
    Well, she said that but she did still execute a lot of people.
    Wasn't that the ones who came out, so to speak? So long as you behaved in public and didn't cause trouble you were ok. Though being a RC was beyond the pale - but because it was treason in terms of repudiating the English setup, surely.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003

    50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20

    Frankly, Westminster should embrace this. Start negotiations with a clear position that the currency union will not last more than three years. Also demand that the SNP publish budgets for that period to show what they would cut.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
    Doesn't have to be colonialism as strictly defined to be rejected on the grounds of independence and autonomy: simpluy the imposition of generallyt unwelcome policies and attitudes. So your argument does fall at that particular part of the sequence.
  • Craig Murray:

    No, I am back from a long planned half term family holiday in North Uist, at home in Edinburgh.
    So if Murrell and Robertson want to phone Livingstone again and get the flying squad back round
    I am busily editing Britnat Stewart MacDonald's emails, in line with the legal advice.


    https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1627246914440777730?s=20
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    nico679 said:

    Can Johnson just fxck off and let the adults try and sort this out .

    Oh come on. How much more grown-up can you get than sleeping with loads of women, having an uncountably large number of children by them, being leader of your nation and ending up rich and famous?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    New thread.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,303
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?

    I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
    He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
    There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
    Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?

    I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm

    it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie

    And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse

    Also killed 2m people
    @kinabalu really has you rattled, doesn't he? I don't know why.
    Perhaps because he doesn’t have me “rattled”?!

    Bizarre

    I love a good joust on PB but I am also aware that some people don’t like it or can’t hack it. I would never pick on @CorrectHorseBattery3 for instance

    By contrast @kinabalu seems fairly robust and stable, and happy to give as good as he gets, and he’s not stupid, so he’s a good sparring partner
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    Labour will win easily with a comfortable overall majority. It is their turn, the swing of the pendulum, 13 years etc.
    There is little or nothing the Cons can do about it. Just accept gracefully.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20

    @malcolmg just exploded with excitement...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    Chris said:

    nico679 said:

    Can Johnson just fxck off and let the adults try and sort this out .

    Oh come on. How much more grown-up can you get than sleeping with loads of women, having an uncountably large number of children by them, being leader of your nation and ending up rich and famous?

    Genghis Khan was grown up?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,630
    kle4 said:

    I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627223288232525825?s=20

    Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
    He was party leader in Westminster - a position not without responsibility - including removing some of their talent to the back benches because they thought for themselves and wouldn’t toe the Sturgeon line. Until that Cherry tweet I wasn’t aware of his faith - it never seemed to be brought up.

    Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
    Well, she said that but she did still execute a lot of people.
    And make it a crime not to actively partaken in the state imposed version of Christianity.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,775
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
    Doesn't have to be colonialism as strictly defined to be rejected on the grounds of independence and autonomy: simpluy the imposition of generallyt unwelcome policies and attitudes. So your argument does fall at that particular part of the sequence.
    The basic fundamental purpose of democracy is that it's a means of peacefully selling disputes about what to do when people in a society disagree. It therefore accepts the possibility that sometimes a dispute will be settled in such a way that involves action you disagree with. The alternative is an authoritarian rejection of democracy and an insistence that your side of the argument must always win.

    So a position of not always winning political arguments across Britain does not form the basis of a democratic case for Independence. It's a rejection of democracy on the basis of not tolerating disagreement.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
    Doesn't have to be colonialism as strictly defined to be rejected on the grounds of independence and autonomy: simpluy the imposition of generallyt unwelcome policies and attitudes. So your argument does fall at that particular part of the sequence.
    The basic fundamental purpose of democracy is that it's a means of peacefully selling disputes about what to do when people in a society disagree. It therefore accepts the possibility that sometimes a dispute will be settled in such a way that involves action you disagree with. The alternative is an authoritarian rejection of democracy and an insistence that your side of the argument must always win.

    So a position of not always winning political arguments across Britain does not form the basis of a democratic case for Independence. It's a rejection of democracy on the basis of not tolerating disagreement.
    The Scots have usually not had a government for which they voted, since the mid-50s. For most of the time. They're not primarily trying to impose their choice of government on rUK.

    The Labour position over the last 50 years or so has been very much to advocate not giving the Scots and Welsh voters what they want (non-Tory government and policies) and at least some of the time not giving the English voters what they want (Tory goverrment and policies), all on the numinous grounds of some nationalism and of comminity of the proletarians.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    nico679 said:

    Can Johnson just fxck off and let the adults try and sort this out .

    Oh come on. How much more grown-up can you get than sleeping with loads of women, having an uncountably large number of children by them, being leader of your nation and ending up rich and famous?

    Genghis Khan was grown up?
    Nearly as much of a man as Boris.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    WillG said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Honestly, this is not that much of a drop - thank goodness it was enough in some tight races.

    How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.

    https://twitter.com/ahall_research/status/1626284078197772288

    I think 2.3% is quite a big deal in US politics, the voters there tend to be stickier than for instance in the UK
    Are the voters stickier? Or is it just that the world view of political parties is fundamentally different? I bet if we had a party in the UK that actively wanted to Christianize the education system, ban abortion and overturn elections they lose, than a lot of people would never vote for them.
    It’s hard to distinguish election-denial from being batshit crazy.

    But, this small difference was enough to cost them the Senate, and 5-10 House seats.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    I am one of the “left” wingers who believe in the continuation of the UK, and indeed a British bomb, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

    It’s a cruel world, and I’d prefer Britain to have the means to defend its values and way of life.

    Pacifism is certainly not a left wing tradition. But it has become a conviction for some on the left over the past 50 years.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    Foxy said:

    ClippP said:

    nico679 said:

    ClippP said:

    I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627223288232525825?s=20

    It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.

    He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
    He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights

    And recanted his “it’s not a sin” position.

    The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign.
    The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin

    If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
    You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
    Of course homosexuales are sinners. As are adulterers, liars and lots of others. But only if you are a follower of the hard-line religions - Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mohamedanism and extreme Prostestantism. Non-religious people cannot really talk about "sin". The closest we can get to it is something that is unethical.

    For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
    In most Christian theology we are all born in sin, and therefore sinners in need of salvation.
    There are different levels of sin, however, whether in Christianity or other belief systems. What I have no time for is Christians who have such intolerance of homosexuality, which Jesus didn't say anything about, and yet are blase about divorce, which he clearly had major major problems with.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
    Doesn't have to be colonialism as strictly defined to be rejected on the grounds of independence and autonomy: simpluy the imposition of generallyt unwelcome policies and attitudes. So your argument does fall at that particular part of the sequence.
    Especially those Scots who ‘viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people’, if only a whole bunch of other people who had recently sold EU membership as a benefit of being part of the UK decided we shouldn’t be give any choice at all.

    South of Gretna = greatest exercise of democracy and reclaimed sovereignty in British history.
    North of Gretna = suck it up suckers,
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited February 2023
    🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

    https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    This thread has

    backed Keith Brown

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,775
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.

    I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
    Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
    Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
    The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense.
    And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
    Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
    If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
    In theoretical terms the question as to whether Scottish Independence is fundamentally a right-wing or left-wing project hinges on the question of whether it's essentially a Nationalist project based on aggressive feelings of superiority and antipathy to those identified as being foreign, or if it's primarily a cause of Liberation, defending a national identity from the aggressive imperialistic nationalism of a colonialist power.

    The same question and framing applies to Brexit, where we see that the fundamental dividing line between Leavers and Remainers was between those who saw Brexit as liberation from a colonialist EU, and those who viewed membership of the EU as a free choice taken by a free people.

    I see both causes as fundamentally Nationalist in character, and so identify them as being right-wing. The idea that Britain was a colony of the EU, or Scotland is a colony of England is one that I find risible, but it does seem like a reasonable framing for the relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, if our Scottish [Civic] Nationalist Posters genuinely believe that Scotland is a colony of England then I could understand why they might view the struggle for Independence as a left-wing project.
    Doesn't have to be colonialism as strictly defined to be rejected on the grounds of independence and autonomy: simpluy the imposition of generallyt unwelcome policies and attitudes. So your argument does fall at that particular part of the sequence.
    The basic fundamental purpose of democracy is that it's a means of peacefully selling disputes about what to do when people in a society disagree. It therefore accepts the possibility that sometimes a dispute will be settled in such a way that involves action you disagree with. The alternative is an authoritarian rejection of democracy and an insistence that your side of the argument must always win.

    So a position of not always winning political arguments across Britain does not form the basis of a democratic case for Independence. It's a rejection of democracy on the basis of not tolerating disagreement.
    The Scots have usually not had a government for which they voted, since the mid-50s. For most of the time. They're not primarily trying to impose their choice of government on rUK.

    The Labour position over the last 50 years or so has been very much to advocate not giving the Scots and Welsh voters what they want (non-Tory government and policies) and at least some of the time not giving the English voters what they want (Tory goverrment and policies), all on the numinous grounds of some nationalism and of comminity of the proletarians.
    Like I said, you don't accept English and Welsh people as being worthy of disagreeing with. Any disagreement with them is invalid.

    If you don't get everything that you want in an independent Scotland which group will you blame for that and will you reject their participation in your democracy as not valid?
  • kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    ClippP said:

    nico679 said:

    ClippP said:

    I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627223288232525825?s=20

    It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.

    He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
    He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights

    And recanted his “it’s not a sin” position.

    The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign.
    The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin

    If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
    You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
    Of course homosexuales are sinners. As are adulterers, liars and lots of others. But only if you are a follower of the hard-line religions - Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mohamedanism and extreme Prostestantism. Non-religious people cannot really talk about "sin". The closest we can get to it is something that is unethical.

    For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
    In most Christian theology we are all born in sin, and therefore sinners in need of salvation.
    How convenient - even if someone is a very good person, they still need the intercession of some church or preacher to 'save' them.
    No they don't. A feature of Christianity is you can have a personal relationship with God, not dependent on any third party. That might be one reason why the Church was opposed to translating the bible into English.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.

    I posted a similar thought the other day. There does seem to be a lot of Penny/Kemi-esque projection surrounding her.
    Yes, I agree

    She’s so young she’s a blank canvas. She also looks OK, she’s smart, well educated (but not posh), so she’s this perfect space on which to draw your ideal First Minister if you’re desperate to find the new Sturgeon

    We have seen how badly this projection can go wrong with Liz Truss, when everyone wanted her to be Thatcher
    Ash Regan is the perfect candidate
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    DavidL said:

    He's definitely going to be in the running and 20/1 seems excessively generous to me. His time as Justice Minister has been abysmal but so was Yousaf's and it doesn't seem to be holding him back. "By the end of the year", of course, also allows a Truss type shambles with whoever has been selected.
    David, I would not put your money on him at 200-1, another arse licking dud. Scotland's equivalent of Cleverly. A useful idiot to send out and tell whoppers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    Nigelb said:

    malcolmg said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627223288232525825?s=20

    Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
    Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ?
    Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
    Biden has always done a good job of swerving this problem on abortion.
    That was pretty well my point.
    Biden, despite the teachings of his church, for example led on gay marriage - against the then opposition of his President.

    I’m in no position to judge Forbes, as I know almost nothing about her, but the objection to her appears to be that her politics is rather more swayed by her beliefs.
    Given she has never given any opinion based on religion it is all bollocks by morons who are just making it up
    If that is the case, then fine.
    But you just said upthread that Blackford had never taken any position, so I’ll reserve judgment.
    Feel free, these clowns hide rather than oppose the Fuhrer
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20


    yes
  • I am one of the “left” wingers who believe in the continuation of the UK, and indeed a British bomb, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

    It’s a cruel world, and I’d prefer Britain to have the means to defend its values and way of life.

    I don't think you're that left-wing.
This discussion has been closed.