Howdy, Stranger!

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

How first past the post helped the SNP at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 2023 in General
imageHow first past the post helped the SNP at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

If ever there was an argument against the first past the post voting system then the outcome in Scotland at the last election makes a great case.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204
    edited February 2023
    1st like Labour

    Good morning all. I like the Labour resurgence in Scotland. Double-digit Labour Westminster MPs is going to help their cause and I can see them starting to do very well over the next 18 months to the General Election.
  • 'The SNP for the last 4 years has had a very powerful position at Westminster'

    Lol
  • Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.
  • Heathener said:

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
    All the polling Stuart mentions is for Westminster.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204
    felix said:

    The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.

    I'm not sure Ian Murray was very wise to suggest independence was dead just because Nicola Sturgeon resigned. If Scottish independence is so reliant on one individual then it really is built on sand, to borrow from Mike.

    But it isn't. Scottish independence has been around for as long as the mountains and glens.

    I don't agree with Labour on their unionist stance and I particularly don't agree with them denying the Scots the right to have another vote. It is blindingly obvious to most everyone except the HYUFD types that the 2016 vote materially altered the Scottish constitution in a decision for which they did not vote. They obviously ought to have the right to another vote and only a cad and a liar can deny them it.

    So Labour are being shits on this.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204
    edited February 2023

    Heathener said:

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
    All the polling Stuart mentions is for Westminster.
    No that's not right.

    Those polls he mentions of 42% and 43% (Savanta and Survation) and are for the Scottish Parliament:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    There are very few Scottish voting intention polls for Westminster and Stuart did not quote from them. The last ones were in mid-January I believe: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Small shifts in votes can produce very big shifts in seats in Scotland.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,777
    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.
  • Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
    All the polling Stuart mentions is for Westminster.
    No that's not right.

    Those polls he mentions of 42% and 43% (Savanta and Survation) and are for the Scottish Parliament:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    There are very few Scottish voting intention polls for Westminster and Stuart did not quote from them. The last ones were in mid-January I believe: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
    Jeezo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland


  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,777
    It's far too early to make any medium-term conclusions about what's happening in Scotland. The SNP's short-term issues are two-fold:

    1) Her resignation is a disruption.
    2) They are already at a very high level of support, and there is probably not much to be gained on the upside.

    So much depends on her successor, but the SNP have proved rather good at navigating troublesome waters over the last couple of decades.

    (/obvious post)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    That's grim. The Corbyn fan club is quite bewildering. The man had his plus points (as far as I'm concerned) but also high levels of disingenuity, hatred, and bile.

    On a par with the racism directed at Son Heung-Min yesterday.

    The internet can be such a vile place. I have come off most every form of social media and this is one of the last places I look at. Often it's a pleasant enough place to discuss things without vitriol and flaming but not always. I avoid the evenings on here when the temperature seems to rise.

    Has the internet really made the world a better place? Rhetorical question.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064

    'The SNP for the last 4 years has had a very powerful position at Westminster'

    Lol

    Yes, it would be more accurate to say an even more outsize number of seats in proportion to their vote than FPTP tends to award to the plurality of votes elsewhere.

    But the underlying point about the absurd system is a sound one.

    And of course in a hung Parliament it might, for once, accord Scottish MPs a reasonable amount of influence - usually only achieved when one of them becomes PM.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,204
    edited February 2023

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
    All the polling Stuart mentions is for Westminster.
    No that's not right.

    Those polls he mentions of 42% and 43% (Savanta and Survation) and are for the Scottish Parliament:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    There are very few Scottish voting intention polls for Westminster and Stuart did not quote from them. The last ones were in mid-January I believe: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
    Jeezo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland


    Edit.

    I stand corrected. This is very confusing. They are listed here as Scottish parliament polls:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    But clearly here as Westminster VI (which I still read as as 'Six' thanks to my latin education)

    https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1626657738146164736/photo/1

    https://www.survation.com/scotlands-political-landscape-after-nicola-sturgeon/

    Sorry about that. It'll teach me to trust Wikipedia.


  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    The risk for the SNP is this

    Politics however is ruthless. The more voters see the choice is not how Scottish they are but who can best run the country, the greater the risk to SNP hegemony.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,877
    Sean_F said:

    Small shifts in votes can produce very big shifts in seats in Scotland.

    Not sure about that - last time I checked, it looked like it would have to be a significant swing to Labour to see a waterfall movement in Westminster seats, with many majorities a similar size.
  • I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    Onlyfans?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    'The SNP for the last 4 years has had a very powerful position at Westminster'

    Lol

    There is an article in The Times today by an SNP strategist

    TLDR; "Pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase don't vote Labour"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/in-this-critical-moment-the-snp-must-shift-up-a-gear-once-again-vmp6zf983
  • It seems that Boris Johnson’s interventions in the Sunday papers haven’t gone down too well with some members of his party. Tory grandee George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4 today to issue a scathing rejoinder to his longtime rival. The former chancellor questioned the sincerity of Johnson’s commitment to Northern Ireland by pointing out that Rishi Sunak merely inherited the ‘mess’ of the contentious Protocol. He also noted how Johnson has acquired, er, something of a reputation for disloyalty, having agitated against multiple Prime Ministers before for personal gain:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-osborne-claims-boris-wants-to-oust-rishi/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    edited February 2023
    There is something wrong with these charts. The percentages of the votes add up to 101.7% and the percentages of the seats only add up to 94.5%. No one else won any seats in Scotland last time around even if some were kicked out of their party since. The SNP won 48 of the 59 seats which is actually 81.6% of the seats won with 45% which makes the point made even stronger.

    The Unionist parties won 20% of the seats with 54% of the votes.
  • On topic it is far too soon to make any assessment of how this will impact Scottish voting intentions. Sturgeon remains leader of the party and first minister. We don't even have a list of candidates vying to succeed her so how can anyone make any claim about what the new leader's impact will be on polling?

    There is a real risk for the party that they select someone who is boring, or who is a mentalist. That absolutely could drive a wedge between the party and their voters. The lesson of the GRR is that when the government pursues a non-issue that is almost bottom of their voter's list of priorities, they upset people.

    I assume the GRR is now dead, the SNP Poll Tax which the new leader will quickly move away from. If that person is smart they will reframe the debate and give us all something new - something relevant to voters - to discuss. If not, this could be a legacy problem.

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,777
    Heathener said:

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    That's grim. The Corbyn fan club is quite bewildering. The man had his plus points (as far as I'm concerned) but also high levels of disingenuity, hatred, and bile.

    On a par with the racism directed at Son Heung-Min yesterday.

    The internet can be such a vile place. I have come off most every form of social media and this is one of the last places I look at. Often it's a pleasant enough place to discuss things without vitriol and flaming but not always. I avoid the evenings on here when the temperature seems to rise.

    Has the internet really made the world a better place? Rhetorical question.
    I don't know. Just this morning, I've discovered someone I vaguely know is pregnant again, and it's made me happy. We live quite a way away, so FB / WhatsApp are brilliant ways of just keeping up with the gossip.

    Also, it's really helped us educate our son: from documentaries on the stuff he's interested in, to Twinkl.

    I'm also currently watching this video, on the meltdown in Russia's music scene over the last few years, and how it's heading back towards Soviet-era repression. Quite fascinating, and not something I'd hear about otherwise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSgEW9LFFw8

    So the Internet is a tool. If you use it well, it's brilliant.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...

    That is the theme of another article in The Times today.

    That was the long game plan by Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney back when they started. Be good at devolution as a step towards Indy

    And they royally screwed that up.

    So what now?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeons-resignation-gives-scotland-a-chance-to-end-the-political-poison-lm8w3knkf
  • OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    Asked who was Britain's shortest-serving Prime Minister, it replied rather noncommitally:-

    "According to WorldAtlas, George Canning was Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister, who died in 1827 after 119 days in office. However, some recent sources claim that Liz Truss became Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister in 2022, after resigning on her 45th day in office."

    And where did 45 days come from, if Truss was PM from 6th September to 25th October last year? That's 50 days (or 49, depending how you count the fractions of days at each end). Her 45th day was when she resigned as party leader, but of course she remained Prime Minister until Rishi was elected to replace her.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    I can't recall it ever providing the answer I was looking for. Google does it multiple times a day
  • I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".

    And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064

    It seems that Boris Johnson’s interventions in the Sunday papers haven’t gone down too well with some members of his party. Tory grandee George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4 today to issue a scathing rejoinder to his longtime rival. The former chancellor questioned the sincerity of Johnson’s commitment to Northern Ireland by pointing out that Rishi Sunak merely inherited the ‘mess’ of the contentious Protocol. He also noted how Johnson has acquired, er, something of a reputation for disloyalty, having agitated against multiple Prime Ministers before for personal gain:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-osborne-claims-boris-wants-to-oust-rishi/

    Some talk this morning that Sunak might actually take on the rebels over the NI renegotiation.
    I think he has to face them down, if he wishes to retain any credibility as PM. And it's his best opportunity, since apart from the DUP and the gaggle of Borisite malcontents, he will for once have pretty well everyone else on his side.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    edited February 2023

    On topic it is far too soon to make any assessment of how this will impact Scottish voting intentions. Sturgeon remains leader of the party and first minister. We don't even have a list of candidates vying to succeed her so how can anyone make any claim about what the new leader's impact will be on polling?

    There is a real risk for the party that they select someone who is boring, or who is a mentalist. That absolutely could drive a wedge between the party and their voters. The lesson of the GRR is that when the government pursues a non-issue that is almost bottom of their voter's list of priorities, they upset people.

    I assume the GRR is now dead, the SNP Poll Tax which the new leader will quickly move away from. If that person is smart they will reframe the debate and give us all something new - something relevant to voters - to discuss. If not, this could be a legacy problem.

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    If your focus is on not upsetting loud but small minorities and keeping them in the tent of Independence you make poor decisions or, even more often, you end up making no decision at all. Eventually this catches up with you and that is where we now are. A government that actually focused on governing would be a transformational change but I don't see it.
  • Scott_xP said:

    OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    I can't recall it ever providing the answer I was looking for. Google does it multiple times a day
    In the old days, it was said that Bing was best at searching for porn, and Google for everything else.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,951
    Heathener said:

    Often it's a pleasant enough place to discuss things without vitriol and flaming but not always. I avoid the evenings on here when the temperature seems to rise.

    I have the opposite problem. I'm usually here on a morning because that's when I'm in my office looking for cars/car parts, doing eBay/FB Marketplace, etc. In the afternoons and evenings I'm usually tutoring, in the workshop or en famille. Consequently, I usually miss seeing all the best slanging matches and drunken meltdowns live but I still enjoy picking through the wreckage the following day.
  • I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".

    And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
    All Trots are w*nkers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    DavidL said:

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    It's actually worse than that. The question was simply

    does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    The response to Covid is perhaps the most stark example. Everything was "different", and the outcomes were exactly the same.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050

    Heathener said:

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    That's grim. The Corbyn fan club is quite bewildering. The man had his plus points (as far as I'm concerned) but also high levels of disingenuity, hatred, and bile.

    On a par with the racism directed at Son Heung-Min yesterday.

    The internet can be such a vile place. I have come off most every form of social media and this is one of the last places I look at. Often it's a pleasant enough place to discuss things without vitriol and flaming but not always. I avoid the evenings on here when the temperature seems to rise.

    Has the internet really made the world a better place? Rhetorical question.
    I don't know. Just this morning, I've discovered someone I vaguely know is pregnant again, and it's made me happy. We live quite a way away, so FB / WhatsApp are brilliant ways of just keeping up with the gossip.

    Also, it's really helped us educate our son: from documentaries on the stuff he's interested in, to Twinkl.

    I'm also currently watching this video, on the meltdown in Russia's music scene over the last few years, and how it's heading back towards Soviet-era repression. Quite fascinating, and not something I'd hear about otherwise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSgEW9LFFw8

    So the Internet is a tool. If you use it well, it's brilliant.
    The internet is a tool.

    Many people who use it are much bigger tools.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".

    And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
    All Trots are w*nkers.
    All Trots are shits, surely?
  • ydoethur said:

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".

    And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
    All Trots are w*nkers.
    All Trots are shits, surely?
    What finally did it for me was understanding how they used to vote before the blessed Jeremy. With a few exceptions, all of these entryists had previously voted for TUSC or NHA or another Tory-enabling scab organisation. And then came along claiming to be true Labour.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    “Searching for Liz Truss on Bing”. Sounds like someone needs an intervention.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064
    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.
  • DavidL said:

    On topic it is far too soon to make any assessment of how this will impact Scottish voting intentions. Sturgeon remains leader of the party and first minister. We don't even have a list of candidates vying to succeed her so how can anyone make any claim about what the new leader's impact will be on polling?

    There is a real risk for the party that they select someone who is boring, or who is a mentalist. That absolutely could drive a wedge between the party and their voters. The lesson of the GRR is that when the government pursues a non-issue that is almost bottom of their voter's list of priorities, they upset people.

    I assume the GRR is now dead, the SNP Poll Tax which the new leader will quickly move away from. If that person is smart they will reframe the debate and give us all something new - something relevant to voters - to discuss. If not, this could be a legacy problem.

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    If your focus is on not upsetting loud but small minorities and keeping them in the tent of Independence you make poor decisions or, even more often, you end up making no decision at all. Eventually this catches up with you and that is where we now are. A government that actually focused on governing would be a transformational change but I don't see it.
    As a horrible English person now 2 years living in Scotland I'm still to be on the receiving end of this vitriol. It was far worse being an outsider living in Thornaby-on-Tees than it is living here.
  • Nigelb said:

    It seems that Boris Johnson’s interventions in the Sunday papers haven’t gone down too well with some members of his party. Tory grandee George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4 today to issue a scathing rejoinder to his longtime rival. The former chancellor questioned the sincerity of Johnson’s commitment to Northern Ireland by pointing out that Rishi Sunak merely inherited the ‘mess’ of the contentious Protocol. He also noted how Johnson has acquired, er, something of a reputation for disloyalty, having agitated against multiple Prime Ministers before for personal gain:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-osborne-claims-boris-wants-to-oust-rishi/

    Some talk this morning that Sunak might actually take on the rebels over the NI renegotiation.
    I think he has to face them down, if he wishes to retain any credibility as PM. And it's his best opportunity, since apart from the DUP and the gaggle of Borisite malcontents, he will for once have pretty well everyone else on his side.
    Yep - surely even Sunak realises that he now has to face the loons down. They will only accept demonstrable EU defeat and that will never happen. A failure to deliver a protocol deal because the ERG says no will prove he is as weak as Labour says he is. It’s hard to believe he is so far down the rabbit hole that he does not understand this.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    It's actually worse than that. The question was simply

    does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    The response to Covid is perhaps the most stark example. Everything was "different", and the outcomes were exactly the same.
    Covid is being presented as Nicola's finest hour and there were some good bits to the response but the pointless and counterproductive differentiation in regulations, days of shut down etc were a disgrace leading to serious confusion and lost trade and education. Even as a lawyer I recall having genuine confusion what the law was on several occasions because it was badly drafted, very badly publicised and pointlessly different from what the national media were reporting.

    Other examples are things like "free" prescriptions which mainly benefits the middle classes since the poor were largely exempt anyway and "free" University education which has greatly restricted choice and opportunity for Scottish students who are left with repayable maintenance debts anyway.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,498
    edited February 2023
    Interesting if slightly depressing analysis of why the sanctions against Russia have not been effective.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/20/sanctions-war-russia-ukraine-year-on-vladimir-putin
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    When I was first teaching US politics, ten years ago, I said my personal view was that Carter was a very poor president, admittedly partly due to bad luck. I also said that since 1980 he had probably done more good than any other single human being on the planet.

    Nothing I have seen or heard since has led me to change my views on either point.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited February 2023
    Heathener said:

    Mike has still not deigned to answer why he reported the YouGov poll as SNP 29% when the actual figure was 38%, and why he presented it as a post-resignation speech poll when the fieldwork was pre-speech.

    Also hard to understand why the 38% YouGov was massively hyped up by PB but the two actual post-resignation speech polls - showing the SNP at 42% (Savanta) and 43% (Survation) - were not even mentioned above-the-line and barely below-the-line.

    Thus are reputations damaged.

    Hard to deny that there appears to have been a dip in support for the SNP though Stuart? It may not yet be seismic, but a sure enough wee dip:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

    The confusing thing, as ever, is using polls for the Scottish Parliament and then applying them to Westminster, when the two are not the same and voting intentions for each can vary.
    The Savanta 43% is just 2 points lower than the actual result at the last UK GE. In other words MoE. Please note that it was a Westminster VI poll.

    You are linking to the Wikipedia article on Holyrood VI polls. There is a separate article for Westminster VI polls, including a sub-section for English, London, Scottish, Welsh, RW etc Westminster VI polling.

    Thirdly, there has been a noticeable congruence of Westminster and Holyrood VI. Although doubtless concealing churn, the headline numbers for FPTP are usually very similar these days.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,877

    DavidL said:

    On topic it is far too soon to make any assessment of how this will impact Scottish voting intentions. Sturgeon remains leader of the party and first minister. We don't even have a list of candidates vying to succeed her so how can anyone make any claim about what the new leader's impact will be on polling?

    There is a real risk for the party that they select someone who is boring, or who is a mentalist. That absolutely could drive a wedge between the party and their voters. The lesson of the GRR is that when the government pursues a non-issue that is almost bottom of their voter's list of priorities, they upset people.

    I assume the GRR is now dead, the SNP Poll Tax which the new leader will quickly move away from. If that person is smart they will reframe the debate and give us all something new - something relevant to voters - to discuss. If not, this could be a legacy problem.

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    If your focus is on not upsetting loud but small minorities and keeping them in the tent of Independence you make poor decisions or, even more often, you end up making no decision at all. Eventually this catches up with you and that is where we now are. A government that actually focused on governing would be a transformational change but I don't see it.
    As a horrible English person now 2 years living in Scotland I'm still to be on the receiving end of this vitriol. It was far worse being an outsider living in Thornaby-on-Tees than it is living here.
    The differentiation thing ultimately undermined Sturgeon with policies like the bottle return scheme and the GRR, which would have both made more sense as UK-wide policies and meant she could've blamed Westminster when they went wrong.

    There is a fine balance to be found as Scottish FM - beat Westminster (smoking ban), or blame Westminster (NHS).

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075
    Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    Oh look, someone who writes for the Spectator is less than enamoured by Nicola Sturgeon. Stop what you’re doing everyone!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,498
    Nigelb said:

    It seems that Boris Johnson’s interventions in the Sunday papers haven’t gone down too well with some members of his party. Tory grandee George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4 today to issue a scathing rejoinder to his longtime rival. The former chancellor questioned the sincerity of Johnson’s commitment to Northern Ireland by pointing out that Rishi Sunak merely inherited the ‘mess’ of the contentious Protocol. He also noted how Johnson has acquired, er, something of a reputation for disloyalty, having agitated against multiple Prime Ministers before for personal gain:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-osborne-claims-boris-wants-to-oust-rishi/

    Some talk this morning that Sunak might actually take on the rebels over the NI renegotiation.
    I think he has to face them down, if he wishes to retain any credibility as PM. And it's his best opportunity, since apart from the DUP and the gaggle of Borisite malcontents, he will for once have pretty well everyone else on his side.
    I think that's right, Sunak has a golden opportunity to defeat Johnson and his supporters. If not now, when?

    Are the Tories going to ditch yet another PM mid-stream? Really?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    edited February 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    It is so worth reading the whole thread that links to. Thanks very much for the link. I think @ydoethur was spot on with his assessments
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

    I think the problem is the way he judges success isn't the way Sturgeon would do. As @DavidL has pointed out, Sturgeon saw success as prising Scotland and England further apart.

    And she has definitely had some success in that even if they're still far more closely integrated than she would have liked. So from her point of view her time in office won't be worthless.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    It is so worth reading the whole thread that links to. Thanks very much for the link. I thin @ydoethur was spot on with his assessments
    It's ironic that you were quoting me at the same moment I was tagging you, on totally different topics!
  • Heathener said:

    felix said:

    The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.

    I'm not sure Ian Murray was very wise to suggest independence was dead just because Nicola Sturgeon resigned. If Scottish independence is so reliant on one individual then it really is built on sand, to borrow from Mike.

    But it isn't. Scottish independence has been around for as long as the mountains and glens.

    I don't agree with Labour on their unionist stance and I particularly don't agree with them denying the Scots the right to have another vote. It is blindingly obvious to most everyone except the HYUFD types that the 2016 vote materially altered the Scottish constitution in a decision for which they did not vote. They obviously ought to have the right to another vote and only a cad and a liar can deny them it.

    So Labour are being shits on this.
    I’ve heard a Twitter rumour that Ian Murray MP is in trouble in the new Edinburgh South seat. I don’t give the rumour any credence, but worth keeping an eye on. (I have a personal interest as this is the part of the country where I was brought up, with a certain Malcolm Rifkind as my MP.) (Folk might also like to know that Ian Murray is the cousin of PB’s very own treasure @Roger ).

    Worth noting that Martin Baxter gives Murray a 98% chance of holding the redrawn seat:

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Edinburgh South
  • Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

  • Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

    Only if you think Indy is closer now than when she took over.

    She has driven the cause into a culdesac. A cynic might suggest she resigned because she knows Indy is not going to happen on her watch, or her lifetime.

    I am not sure even she would claim this is a significant achievement
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Jonathan said:

    You are quite a human being if becoming the US president is a footnote on your CV.

    But for my A-level students, his presidency will always be summed up by the fight with a rabbit.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.

    He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.

    There's value in that
  • Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

    Why do people attribute success (and failure) to an individual? She is the leader of a large organisation. Credit where credit is due.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    When I was first teaching US politics, ten years ago, I said my personal view was that Carter was a very poor president, admittedly partly due to bad luck. I also said that since 1980 he had probably done more good than any other single human being on the planet.

    Nothing I have seen or heard since has led me to change my views on either point.
    I've re-assessed my view of his presidency up quite a bit in the last few decades.
    I think he had a decidedly mixed record (agreed that's to an extent a matter of circumstance), but I don't think it "very poor".

    His biggest fault was failing to get re-elected.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    edited February 2023
    Re header: I'm sure the SNP are well aware of it. They've consistently supported electoral reform at Westminster.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.

    He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.

    There's value in that
    If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
  • Carnyx said:

    Re header: I'm sure the SNP are well aware of it. They've consistently supported electoral reform at Westminster.

    Shhhh! Let the Jocksperts get on with it. They’re their own worst enemies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064
    edited February 2023

    Nigelb said:

    It seems that Boris Johnson’s interventions in the Sunday papers haven’t gone down too well with some members of his party. Tory grandee George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4 today to issue a scathing rejoinder to his longtime rival. The former chancellor questioned the sincerity of Johnson’s commitment to Northern Ireland by pointing out that Rishi Sunak merely inherited the ‘mess’ of the contentious Protocol. He also noted how Johnson has acquired, er, something of a reputation for disloyalty, having agitated against multiple Prime Ministers before for personal gain:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-osborne-claims-boris-wants-to-oust-rishi/

    Some talk this morning that Sunak might actually take on the rebels over the NI renegotiation.
    I think he has to face them down, if he wishes to retain any credibility as PM. And it's his best opportunity, since apart from the DUP and the gaggle of Borisite malcontents, he will for once have pretty well everyone else on his side.
    Yep - surely even Sunak realises that he now has to face the loons down. They will only accept demonstrable EU defeat and that will never happen. A failure to deliver a protocol deal because the ERG says no will prove he is as weak as Labour says he is. It’s hard to believe he is so far down the rabbit hole that he does not understand this.

    The signs are that he might.
    The briefing over the weekend (presumably form the awkward squad) was the he is going to cave. The briefing seems to be otherwise, this morning.

    As we saw with the long running leadership saga, he's not exactly decisive - he'd likely have been PM much earlier, otherwise - but it's at least a few days too early to write him off completely.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    edited February 2023
    Also on topic: slightly startling to claim that the SNP have a powerful position at Westminster when virtually 99% of PB discourse, and of Unionist discourse, is to flatly deny the concept.

    Edit: with some honourable exceptions.

    And if they complain about that, what about the Unionist parties at Westminster more generally, and the disproportionate number of, say, Conservative MPs versus the vote?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley @JournoStephen

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon’s eight years as First Minister were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.’

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1626978912969318401

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

    Why do people attribute success (and failure) to an individual? She is the leader of a large organisation. Credit where credit is due.


    Mass membership means very little if the leader does not connect with the wider population. Just ask the Labour party.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    Scott_xP said:

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

    Only if you think Indy is closer now than when she took over.

    She has driven the cause into a culdesac. A cynic might suggest she resigned because she knows Indy is not going to happen on her watch, or her lifetime.

    I am not sure even she would claim this is a significant achievement
    Don't agree. The cul de sac is entirely of Unionist making, because of the denial of any democratic or legal mechanism for independence at all. To demonstrate that is progress.
  • DavidL said:

    On topic it is far too soon to make any assessment of how this will impact Scottish voting intentions. Sturgeon remains leader of the party and first minister. We don't even have a list of candidates vying to succeed her so how can anyone make any claim about what the new leader's impact will be on polling?

    There is a real risk for the party that they select someone who is boring, or who is a mentalist. That absolutely could drive a wedge between the party and their voters. The lesson of the GRR is that when the government pursues a non-issue that is almost bottom of their voter's list of priorities, they upset people.

    I assume the GRR is now dead, the SNP Poll Tax which the new leader will quickly move away from. If that person is smart they will reframe the debate and give us all something new - something relevant to voters - to discuss. If not, this could be a legacy problem.

    My big question is this. Is the SNP capable of accepting where we are? That they are making mistakes in government and screwing things up and no, the fault isn't Westminster and no, the solution is not independence. If they really want to shore up their vote and make their case for independence, be a better government...

    The problem has been that through the last 16 years every decision of government has been made through the prism of independence. Not whether this is a good decision for the country as a whole, not whether this is the best use of available resources but does this advance the case for independence and differentiate us from those horrible English people?

    If your focus is on not upsetting loud but small minorities and keeping them in the tent of Independence you make poor decisions or, even more often, you end up making no decision at all. Eventually this catches up with you and that is where we now are. A government that actually focused on governing would be a transformational change but I don't see it.
    For independence read Brexit and you have an accurate description of the UK government, too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,064
    Carnyx said:

    Also on topic: slightly startling to claim that the SNP have a powerful position at Westminster when virtually 99% of PB discourse, and of Unionist discourse, is to flatly deny the concept.

    See my comment upthread.
    Mike was writing about the number of Westminster seats vs their percentage of the Scottish vote. I agree that "very powerful position" was a very poor choice of phrase in the context.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    Carnyx said:

    Don't agree. The cul de sac is entirely of Unionist making, because of the denial of any democratic or legal mechanism for independence at all. To demonstrate that is progress.

    There was an absolutely legal and democratic route.

    And the SNP fluffed it.

    Then Nippy drove them into a culdesac of her own making with her not legal, not democratic "de facto" bullshit.
  • Scott_xP said:

    That depends on how you define worthless, doesn’t it? With a great deal of Tory help, it has to be said, Sturgeon kept the independence conversation very much alive at a time when it could easily have faded away. That is a significant achievement and immensely valuable if you support independence.

    Only if you think Indy is closer now than when she took over.

    She has driven the cause into a culdesac. A cynic might suggest she resigned because she knows Indy is not going to happen on her watch, or her lifetime.

    I am not sure even she would claim this is a significant achievement
    The 2014 referendum was supposed to have killed off independence as a topic of serious political conversation in Scotland. But it clearly hasn’t. Obviously, the Tory government in Westminster has helped, but Sturgeon took the gifts she was given and used them very effectively.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481

    Carnyx said:

    Re header: I'm sure the SNP are well aware of it. They've consistently supported electoral reform at Westminster.

    Shhhh! Let the Jocksperts get on with it. They’re their own worst enemies.
    It is, nevertheless, a startling approach. Not thinking specifically of OGH here, but there is more generally a distinct disconnection between the usual whine of "how unfair it is the SNP have so many MPs!" and poring over the minutiate of what majority the Tories or Labour will have in Westminster on a vote in the 30s or 40s per cent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    When I was first teaching US politics, ten years ago, I said my personal view was that Carter was a very poor president, admittedly partly due to bad luck. I also said that since 1980 he had probably done more good than any other single human being on the planet.

    Nothing I have seen or heard since has led me to change my views on either point.
    I've re-assessed my view of his presidency up quite a bit in the last few decades.
    I think he had a decidedly mixed record (agreed that's to an extent a matter of circumstance), but I don't think it "very poor".

    His biggest fault was failing to get re-elected.
    Well, perhaps.

    He was very much a victim of circumstances.

    But:

    The foreign policy initiatives - Camp David, Salt II, China - were not fruitless, but they didn't achieve what he hoped for. Meanwhile funding the mujahideen and Eagle Claw were undoubtedly disasters.

    Domestically, he was unable to sort out the economic problems. OK, so that was partly due to the oil shock, but that's what he would be judged on. Reagan's slogan 'a recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. A recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his,' was not the less devastating for being somewhat unfair.

    And he made too many unforced errors. The rabbit. Going out jogging looking like he was about to have a fatal heart attack. Talking about the number of women he wanted to have sex with.

    So I'm going with a poor president. I'd compare him to Ford - somebody in an impossible situation who did his best but really was somewhat out of his depth.

    But nothing whatsoever detracts from his later humanitarian work, much of which IIUC he did unpaid.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    Don't agree. The cul de sac is entirely of Unionist making, because of the denial of any democratic or legal mechanism for independence at all. To demonstrate that is progress.

    There was an absolutely legal and democratic route.

    And the SNP fluffed it.

    Then Nippy drove them into a culdesac of her own making with her not legal, not democratic "de facto" bullshit.
    The 2014 referendum is past. It has been discredited by the lies about Brexit.

    This is now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Re header: I'm sure the SNP are well aware of it. They've consistently supported electoral reform at Westminster.

    Shhhh! Let the Jocksperts get on with it. They’re their own worst enemies.
    It is, nevertheless, a startling approach. Not thinking specifically of OGH here, but there is more generally a distinct disconnection between the usual whine of "how unfair it is the SNP have so many MPs!" and poring over the minutiate of what majority the Tories or Labour will have in Westminster on a vote in the 30s or 40s per cent.
    I don't think that's going to be a problem for the Tories for some little time, say, twenty years.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,470
    Likewise on topic, I’m hearing definite rumours that “I can't go for that (no can do)” by Hall & Oates is actually about anal sex
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    Sturgeon took the gifts she was given and used them very effectively.

    Not really

    As Daisley wrote, the trophy cupboard is bare.

    The only thing she leaves he successor is problems, including a "route to Indy" that nobody will follow
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,881
    Sean_F said:

    Small shifts in votes can produce very big shifts in seats in Scotland.

    As can how people vote tactically: it let to the Conservatives getting 18% of the vote in Scotland and precisely zero seats.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915
    Heathener said:

    felix said:

    The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.

    I'm not sure Ian Murray was very wise to suggest independence was dead just because Nicola Sturgeon resigned. If Scottish independence is so reliant on one individual then it really is built on sand, to borrow from Mike.

    But it isn't. Scottish independence has been around for as long as the mountains and glens.

    I don't agree with Labour on their unionist stance and I particularly don't agree with them denying the Scots the right to have another vote. It is blindingly obvious to most everyone except the HYUFD types that the 2016 vote materially altered the Scottish constitution in a decision for which they did not vote. They obviously ought to have the right to another vote and only a cad and a liar can deny them it.

    So Labour are being shits on this.
    Labour would not have won over the SCon voters it has without refusing indyref2.

    Nor does Starmer want to risk Ed Miliband's fate in 2015 by allowing the Tories to attack the risk of a Labour and SNP government
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Leon said:

    Likewise on topic, I’m hearing definite rumours that “I can't go for that (no can do)” by Hall & Oates is actually about anal sex

    And bang on cue, enter Leon to lower the tone.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    Carnyx said:

    This is now.

    And now Sturgeon has given up

    Doesn't seem like somebody on the cusp of victory...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Also on topic: slightly startling to claim that the SNP have a powerful position at Westminster when virtually 99% of PB discourse, and of Unionist discourse, is to flatly deny the concept.

    See my comment upthread.
    Mike was writing about the number of Westminster seats vs their percentage of the Scottish vote. I agree that "very powerful position" was a very poor choice of phrase in the context.
    So you have, thanks. Fair enough.

    And yet - why should the Scots be treated differently from other parts of the UK, just because they dare not vote Labour or Tory? You could say much the same about, say, Liverpool or the Home Counties.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915

    Scott_xP said:

    Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.

    He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.

    There's value in that
    If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
    On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,456
    Heathener said:

    felix said:

    The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.

    I'm not sure Ian Murray was very wise to suggest independence was dead just because Nicola Sturgeon resigned. If Scottish independence is so reliant on one individual then it really is built on sand, to borrow from Mike.

    But it isn't. Scottish independence has been around for as long as the mountains and glens.

    I don't agree with Labour on their unionist stance and I particularly don't agree with them denying the Scots the right to have another vote. It is blindingly obvious to most everyone except the HYUFD types that the 2016 vote materially altered the Scottish constitution in a decision for which they did not vote. They obviously ought to have the right to another vote and only a cad and a liar can deny them it.

    So Labour are being shits on this.
    No, the 2016 Referendum was a UK vote about the UK's status in a non delegated Westminster issue. It did not touch on the Scottish as opposed to the UK constitution.

    (Remainers tend to argue that it was not a constitutional matter at all, but that is obvious nonsense.)

    The aftermath following 2016 has touched on NI's constitutional status specifically; that is because of the sort of Brexit parliament (foolishly) agreed. That is a different question.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Likewise on topic, I’m hearing definite rumours that “I can't go for that (no can do)” by Hall & Oates is actually about anal sex

    And bang on cue, enter Leon to lower the tone.
    Here is something to distract Leon and keep him happy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/20/its-not-a-darning-tool-its-a-very-naughty-toy-roman-dildo-found
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Likewise on topic, I’m hearing definite rumours that “I can't go for that (no can do)” by Hall & Oates is actually about anal sex

    And bang on cue, enter Leon to lower the tone.
    Here is something to distract Leon and keep him happy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/20/its-not-a-darning-tool-its-a-very-naughty-toy-roman-dildo-found
    He'll need a knap after reading that!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915
    The SNP of course benefit from FPTP as much if not more so than the Tories and Labour.

    They would have a comfortable majority of Scottish seats at Holyrood as well as Westminster if Holyrood had FPTP
  • Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:


    Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,881

    OT ChatGPT-powered Bing is rubbish.

    Asked who was Britain's shortest-serving Prime Minister, it replied rather noncommitally:-

    "According to WorldAtlas, George Canning was Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister, who died in 1827 after 119 days in office. However, some recent sources claim that Liz Truss became Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister in 2022, after resigning on her 45th day in office."

    And where did 45 days come from, if Truss was PM from 6th September to 25th October last year? That's 50 days (or 49, depending how you count the fractions of days at each end). Her 45th day was when she resigned as party leader, but of course she remained Prime Minister until Rishi was elected to replace her.

    I prefer this...


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,068
    ydoethur said:

    I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.

    The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.

    They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".

    And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
    All Trots are w*nkers.
    All Trots are shits, surely?
    All “hard” (as in self defined unflinching Worship of Their True Faith) political activists are both.

    At least I haven’t encountered any who aren’t.

    Haven’t met many religious fundies, but they seem to be slightly better at the superficial house training, but are just the same underneath.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481
    HYUFD said:

    The SNP of course benefit from FPTP as much if not more so than the Tories and Labour.

    They would have a comfortable majority of Scottish seats at Holyrood as well as Westminster if Holyrood had FPTP

    And I'd be hairy all over if my granny was a chimpanzee.

    There was no way Mr Blair was going to have FPTP at Edinburgh or Cardiff: he needed to preserve the Labour bastions (and so did the LDs). But he wasn't going to reform Westminster because it was to his advantage not to.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,481

    Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:


    Focaldata/UnHerd 2018

    Now, now, you really will upset them and set them off. More cries of 'treason' and tears before bedtime today.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050

    Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:


    Focaldata/UnHerd 2018

    So you're saying that the SNP policy of a personal Union with the UK monarch if independence is achieved is a foolish one?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited February 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another Carter anecdote; he was a President who actually understood what ivermectin was used for.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewherper/status/1627419555927666688
    I'd like to share a little story about Jimmy Carter, starting with a reporter's keepsake.

    These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread...
    ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.

    Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...


    Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.

    When I was first teaching US politics, ten years ago, I said my personal view was that Carter was a very poor president, admittedly partly due to bad luck. I also said that since 1980 he had probably done more good than any other single human being on the planet.

    Nothing I have seen or heard since has led me to change my views on either point.
    I've re-assessed my view of his presidency up quite a bit in the last few decades.
    I think he had a decidedly mixed record (agreed that's to an extent a matter of circumstance), but I don't think it "very poor".

    His biggest fault was failing to get re-elected.
    Well, perhaps.

    He was very much a victim of circumstances.

    But:

    The foreign policy initiatives - Camp David, Salt II, China - were not fruitless, but they didn't achieve what he hoped for. Meanwhile funding the mujahideen and Eagle Claw were undoubtedly disasters.

    Domestically, he was unable to sort out the economic problems. OK, so that was partly due to the oil shock, but that's what he would be judged on. Reagan's slogan 'a recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. A recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his,' was not the less devastating for being somewhat unfair.

    And he made too many unforced errors. The rabbit. Going out jogging looking like he was about to have a fatal heart attack. Talking about the number of women he wanted to have sex with.

    So I'm going with a poor president. I'd compare him to Ford - somebody in an impossible situation who did his best but really was somewhat out of his depth.

    But nothing whatsoever detracts from his later humanitarian work, much of which IIUC he did unpaid.
    There is a beautiful & generous assessment of Carter by (I know it sounds unlikely) Hunter S. Thompson in The Great Shark Hunt.

    Hunter had attended a speech Carter gave before he decided to run for President. It was about how as Governor he realised the legal system in Georgia operated hugely to the disadvantage of the poor, especially poor blacks.

    It gives us an idea of the passion which took Carter to the Presidency in the first place.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,470
    Someone is making the same claim about “Forget the old red bus, go down the Bakerloo” by the Chutney Ferrets, which is frankly ruining a childhood favourite
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP of course benefit from FPTP as much if not more so than the Tories and Labour.

    They would have a comfortable majority of Scottish seats at Holyrood as well as Westminster if Holyrood had FPTP

    And I'd be hairy all over if my granny was a chimpanzee.

    There was no way Mr Blair was going to have FPTP at Edinburgh or Cardiff: he needed to preserve the Labour bastions (and so did the LDs). But he wasn't going to reform Westminster because it was to his advantage not to.
    He was a damn fool not to have FPTP in Cardiff. Labour majorities of 40/20 nailed on all day. Given the way LAbour's vote is distributed and the geography of Wales it would have been candy from a baby.

    Not that the current shambolic pseudo proportional system is much more equitable.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,877

    Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:


    Focaldata/UnHerd 2018

    This kind of thing is a trap for the SNP. Getting rid of the monarchy is not a good reason to cause untold political and economic uncertainty.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915

    Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:


    Focaldata/UnHerd 2018

    Data 1 month old, only 35% of Scots want a republic.

    48% of Scots want to keep the monarchy now Charles is King.
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/12/prince-harrys-popularity-falls-further-spare-hits-
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Re header: I'm sure the SNP are well aware of it. They've consistently supported electoral reform at Westminster.

    Shhhh! Let the Jocksperts get on with it. They’re their own worst enemies.
    It is, nevertheless, a startling approach. Not thinking specifically of OGH here, but there is more generally a distinct disconnection between the usual whine of "how unfair it is the SNP have so many MPs!" and poring over the minutiate of what majority the Tories or Labour will have in Westminster on a vote in the 30s or 40s per cent.
    Don't disagree but interesting that even the system used for t
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Likewise on topic, I’m hearing definite rumours that “I can't go for that (no can do)” by Hall & Oates is actually about anal sex

    And bang on cue, enter Leon to lower the tone.
    Au contraire anal sex is a definite improvement on yet mor angst about Scotland.!
This discussion has been closed.