FPT I expect Labour to win Rutherglen by between 6,000 and 10,000 depending on turnout. I expect Labour to take between 60% and 70% of the vote. I expect the Conservatives to lose their deposit.
Ok, I overestimated the Labour percentage. A few more SNP voters actually voted than I expected.
So after chapping (according to them) thousands of doors, having dozens of southern Lab MPs press the Rutherglen flesh, unleashing the 20 watt Starmer charisma and benefitting from several thousand tactical Tory votes, SLab received fewer votes in this constituency than they did in every election this century, including the two they lost? I guess it indicates the lukewarm ceiling of Labour support in Scotland. The more interesting questions are how many indy/SNP supporters sat on their hands, and if/when they might stop doing so.
Or it suggests that the voters of Rutherglen, barely more than a third of whom turned out, are fed up with all politicians.
That was certainly the tenor of the vox pops I saw.
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
This looks like a surprisingly significant result.
Mike has correctly cautioned about betting on a Labour Overall Majority because of the sheer number of Seats they have to win. If they can pick up a soft twenty or so in Scotland the task appears immeasurably easier.
1.47 on Betfair looks this morning as though it may even be a bit of value.
1.47 is value - it’s been obvious for a while that the SNP will do badly in the next election and the 20-30 seats that gives Labour made a Labour majority very likely..
Yep there may be swing back to the Tories in England but I don’t see that north of the border - the SNP are currently on a downward slope after x years in power…
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
Eh? Turnout is never anywhere near as big at BE as GE. The absolute numbers really don’t say much at all.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
Why not?
He is terrible, they're falling in the polls, and making terrible long term decisions.
Roll those dice.
Of course there are about 25-35 MPs who are staunch Trussites, too, so it doesn't need many more to write their letter to Sir Graham to get to that vote of confidence that always does for leaders within 6 months even if they win....
My preference is for as many unionist seats as possible, and the precise split of those is irrelevant.
Labour have the best chance of large numbers of seats, and given the Tories will lose some of theirs in Scotland at the very least, that's all the better.
So even a result half of what's seen here would be a great recovery.
I expect Labour majority odds will spike and mid beds will now go red.
So after chapping (according to them) thousands of doors, having dozens of southern Lab MPs press the Rutherglen flesh, unleashing the 20 watt Starmer charisma and benefitting from several thousand tactical Tory votes, SLab received fewer votes in this constituency than they did in every election this century, including the two they lost? I guess it indicates the lukewarm ceiling of Labour support in Scotland. The more interesting questions are how many indy/SNP supporters sat on their hands, and if/when they might stop doing so.
SNP supporters will stop sitting on their hands when the SNP stop embracing Green policies.
Obviously people need to be cautious about overreacting to by-elections etc, but we'd all be pretty dull if we never reacted at all. Some of us are dull enough already, thank you very much.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The PCP lost its mind a long time ago, electing Sunak being the freshest evidence. The grassroots Party I think remains very much in control of its faculties, though I don't expect many here to agree.
I have to agree on the conference bit though. Had Penny emerged the star, it would have been encouraging that she could have taken over. But she didn't, and I don't see Suella stepping aside for her. Suella has undoubted qualities, but she's very divisive in a way that even Boris wasn't.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
Why not?
....
What's the next one going to do to 'shake things up' ? Abolish the NHS ?
The mandate to govern is now paper thin at best. Another change would be universally seen as taking the piss.
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
That's some heroic spin class you've been to.
To get only 700 fewer votes than the last GE at a by-election is absolutely remarkable.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
Why not?
He is terrible, they're falling in the polls, and making terrible long term decisions.
Roll those dice.
Of course there are about 25-35 MPs who are staunch Trussites, too, so it doesn't need many more to write their letter to Sir Graham to get to that vote of confidence that always does for leaders within 6 months even if they win....
I cannot see the public tolerating another full leadership election, and I also struggle to see the members accepting another coronation. Is there a middle way? I'd like to think so but it needs careful thought.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
What’s that Latin phrase about whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad? I think it is quite possible that the Tories will try to change leader again.
Of course my standing as a prophet will be weakened by the thought that I thought the SNP might hold
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
It really doesn’t matter what they realise. The Tories simply cannot change leader again before the election. And it is not as if there are any obvious alternatives sitting in the wings. I am increasingly concerned that the next leader will be worse.
Why not?
He is terrible, they're falling in the polls, and making terrible long term decisions.
Roll those dice.
Of course there are about 25-35 MPs who are staunch Trussites, too, so it doesn't need many more to write their letter to Sir Graham to get to that vote of confidence that always does for leaders within 6 months even if they win....
I thought jettison Rishi, replace with Penny and the Tories achieve a healthy majority against the abject Starmer. For those Tories who think Mordaunt is the answer revisit Wednesday's speech. It was truly, truly awful. Johnson levels of research. Lazy!
Badenoch or Barclay, hmmm? No change.
So for the win you have to go Braverman nuclear. She could do it with some insane populism, but the cost to the country would be immeasurable.
Best to stick with Rishi and hope for a black swan.
We’ve had a few months of poor Tory polling but with Labour slipping a little vs Lib Dem and a small SNP recovery. But not tonight.
Public opinion is at least partly about backing the winner, and this result plus all the coverage of conference in the coming week, which will surely be more successful than the CPC just gone, has got to give them a boost. Up to high 40s for a while I reckon.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
So what would be we say is the floor of SNP MPs at the next GE? They're still the only credible Westminster Sindy vote, support for which is still very significant, and tactical voting and sitting and home respectively could happen but will never be as severe as in a by-election.
A good night being a 2017 style result and a bad one most seats but dropping below half?
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
That's some heroic spin class you've been to.
To get only 700 fewer votes than the last GE at a by-election is absolutely remarkable.
Is it ? The Labour vote increased by 3k at the Selby by-election.
FPT I expect Labour to win Rutherglen by between 6,000 and 10,000 depending on turnout. I expect Labour to take between 60% and 70% of the vote. I expect the Conservatives to lose their deposit.
Ok, I overestimated the Labour percentage. A few more SNP voters actually voted than I expected.
So after chapping (according to them) thousands of doors, having dozens of southern Lab MPs press the Rutherglen flesh, unleashing the 20 watt Starmer charisma and benefitting from several thousand tactical Tory votes, SLab received fewer votes in this constituency than they did in every election this century, including the two they lost? I guess it indicates the lukewarm ceiling of Labour support in Scotland. The more interesting questions are how many indy/SNP supporters sat on their hands, and if/when they might stop doing so.
May I break my PB fast to congratulate you on the quality of the straw you’ve managed to grab hold of there.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
That's some heroic spin class you've been to.
To get only 700 fewer votes than the last GE at a by-election is absolutely remarkable.
Is it ? The Labour vote increased by 3k at the Selby by-election.
Which was also absolutely remarkable.
SOP at by-elections I believe is to win with much fewer votes than last time.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
A chill gets me out of bed though hardly full of the joys of autumn.
A strong result for Labour before their Conference and a good step on the road for the party on its journey back to power. The prospect of re-establishing its presence in Scottish politics (no one is talking about a Conservative wipeout as in 1997 it seems).is a step toward building that voting coalition and majority.
As with other by-elections (bar Uxbridge), the Conservative vote disintegrated (the LDs did little better) to Labour or stayed at home,
Labour now has its Conference and for the first time in many years it's in the position of being taken seriously - we know there will be a strong business presence for example. Doubtless the Mail, Express and others will try to whip the slightest hint of dissent or disagreement with Starmer into some frenetic sceptre of chaos and division but those commentators who lavished praise on Braverman and Sunak's efforts this week can hardly be expected (or trusted) to give a reasonable and objective analysis of Starmer or Reeves.
Starmer may be Blair without the charisma but he's realised, like Blair, Labour never wins when it is too radical (it did in 1945 under unique circumstances). The route to power lies in reassuring the disillusioned or angry ex-Conservative voters and that re-assurance has to go on right up to Polling Day. Things won't change too much but they will be done "better". This week, Sunak has written his version of the infamous Liam Byrne note from 2010 and that will temper expectations and give Starmer a nice big target to aim at both next week and for years to come.
Next week will be all about re-assurance - if there is a hint of second term radicalism, it will stay hidden for now. It's all about getting the election won and then getting on with Government. Part of that re-assurance will be to not sound hubristic - Starmer knows the Conservatives aren't finished and they will fight and claw and cling on to the very end - it won't be edifying and the country will suffer but that's how politics works.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
That might well be the case, but it finds its most comfortable home on the right.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
Trans activists are often their own worst enemies, and I agree that transphopia is not just found on the right. The other Transphobes are not in power, nor likely to be.
I fear for my two Trans friends and family in such a hostile environment. Suicide is very possible for at least one of the two youngsters.
Whilst no doubt that the SNP lost Rutherglen that Labour got 700 fewer votes than at the last GE demonstrates either the lack of enthusiasm for Labour or their poor management of by-election campaigns, or both.
That's some heroic spin class you've been to.
To get only 700 fewer votes than the last GE at a by-election is absolutely remarkable.
Is it ? The Labour vote increased by 3k at the Selby by-election.
Labour vote also down 4,671 at Uxbridge - At Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome the winners vote went up by 13,730 and 4,170 respectively since the GE.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
Same with me. I have one full on post op trans female friend. She too despises the latest cohort of militant Trans rights activists. She thinks they are actually setting the cause back, she thinks that self identification is dangerous simplistic nonsense and quite pernicious for young people
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
That's part of it, sure. But his two predecessors had both discredited themselves. Johnson by refusing to back down from lying, Truss by throwing out terrible ideas and having no idea at all about party management. They're not coming back.
(One of the symptoms of Conservative decay is the number of people on the right who simply don't get that Johnson, then Truss, simply had to go and simply cannot return.)
Sunak is definitely surprising on the downside; poor in the ways expected (poor communicator, a trip of right wingers that isn't where the country is) and unexpectedly bad in carrying over the flaws of Johnson and Truss (slippery sod who generates bad ideas via a closed clique).
Rolling the dice again is the sort of desperate act that might attract a desperate party. But it's not easy to see who the GE winner waiting in the wings is. Heck, it's hard to see who takes over is Rishi is run over by a rail replacement bus.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Champagne, Tapas, Rioja, Skiing in the Alps, Croissants, Sunshine and Beaches vs Irnbru, Haggis and Deep Fried Mars Bar?
That's a tidy result for SLab. The Labour folk I spoke to in August who'd been campaigning in Rutherglen seemed confident of a win and it looks like that confidence was well-placed. Very happy this morning.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
It really hasn't. It may have some UKIP tendencies but would UKIP allow the level of migration we currently have, or the boats to continue, or the high levels of taxation, or the rolling out of the nanny state we are seeing.
No they wouldn't.
I Do not doubt it has lost its mind but its approach to policy is very scattergun. Their approach to policies is like the scene in Reggie Perrin where they are discussing advertising slogans and their approach is "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" that was very much last weeks approach.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
It is a decision for Scots, so my views carry no weight, but I think England is simply too dominant within the Union for the Union to work effectively. This lends itself to English arrogance, and Southern English arrogance in particular.
Scottish and Northern Irish politics are fossilised over these Constitutional issues, and Wales too to a lesser degree. Scottish independence and Irish unification look the only way to break that deadlock.
I see the future as smaller states within a looser EU.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
Sure. But
1. Britain has been a remarkably successful political union for 300 years. You don’t just casually chuck that away
2. Accepting that polities evolve is a long way from willingly desiring their break up
So what would be we say is the floor of SNP MPs at the next GE? They're still the only credible Westminster Sindy vote, support for which is still very significant, and tactical voting and sitting and home respectively could happen but will never be as severe as in a by-election.
A good night being a 2017 style result and a bad one most seats but dropping below half?
Its FPTP, they can be well under half. The trend polling lead is about SNP +3 which gives them about 28 seats. If Labour can get to 3 ahead and there is also tactical voting in their favour I could see SNP around 15 seats. That's probably about the floor in normal circumstances, but complete implosion must be plausible too.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
For the avoidance of doubt I will probably vote Tory again next time for the Union as I have been moved from Dundee West to South Angus and Labour have no chance in the latter whilst the Tories have held Angus relatively recently. But it will be the least enthusiastic vote of my adult life. I am well scunnered of this lot.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
The UK changed only 100 years ago, we can have another 100?
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
That might well be the case, but it finds its most comfortable home on the right.
I’m really not sure that’s true
On the right I think you find more confusion and bewilderment. They don’t understand what the fight is even about
Eg it’s noticeable that the bitterest online trans arguments tend to be between LEFT wing feminist women - J K Rowling, Joanna Cherry - and the trans militants
A chill gets me out of bed though hardly full of the joys of autumn.
A strong result for Labour before their Conference and a good step on the road for the party on its journey back to power. The prospect of re-establishing its presence in Scottish politics (no one is talking about a Conservative wipeout as in 1997 it seems).is a step toward building that voting coalition and majority.
As with other by-elections (bar Uxbridge), the Conservative vote disintegrated (the LDs did little better) to Labour or stayed at home,
Labour now has its Conference and for the first time in many years it's in the position of being taken seriously - we know there will be a strong business presence for example. Doubtless the Mail, Express and others will try to whip the slightest hint of dissent or disagreement with Starmer into some frenetic sceptre of chaos and division but those commentators who lavished praise on Braverman and Sunak's efforts this week can hardly be expected (or trusted) to give a reasonable and objective analysis of Starmer or Reeves.
Starmer may be Blair without the charisma but he's realised, like Blair, Labour never wins when it is too radical (it did in 1945 under unique circumstances). The route to power lies in reassuring the disillusioned or angry ex-Conservative voters and that re-assurance has to go on right up to Polling Day. Things won't change too much but they will be done "better". This week, Sunak has written his version of the infamous Liam Byrne note from 2010 and that will temper expectations and give Starmer a nice big target to aim at both next week and for years to come.
Next week will be all about re-assurance - if there is a hint of second term radicalism, it will stay hidden for now. It's all about getting the election won and then getting on with Government. Part of that re-assurance will be to not sound hubristic - Starmer knows the Conservatives aren't finished and they will fight and claw and cling on to the very end - it won't be edifying and the country will suffer but that's how politics works.
Some of us feel that the circumstances of now are closer to 1945 than any other election in the intervening period. There is room for Starmer to be more radical. The tragedy is really his apparent disinclination to take the opportunity.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
Over my lifetime the SNP heartland has shifted. It used to be in the NE, and the Central belt solidly SLab, but it now seems the central belt dominates the SNP.
FpTP has been kind to the SNP in Westminster, but that gearing can reverse quickly. SNP on 6-10 at Westminster could well be on the cards.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I have some sympathy for Yousaf. To a lesser degree than Sunak he's coming in after a very long period in power as a continuity candidate, and keeping things together politically becomes increasingly difficult.
Of course that doesn't mean the new leader cannot through their own choices and qualities make things worse, but things former leaders could brush past they just cannot.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
The UK changed only 100 years ago, we can have another 100?
The U.K. has to deserve it. Does the U.K. deserve to survive in its current form, or at all? Views differ.
Anyway, it’s not up to me. I don’t see the quality of life of people in the Netherlands being particularly impacted by the formation of Belgium, or the Czechs by Slovakia, or indeed this country by the emergence of the Irish state. If they want to go let them. For us English to say “you need to stay for your own good” is paternalism at best, imperialism at worst.
I’m in economy class. I considered an upgrade but it turns out economy is 2/3 empty whereas premium and Business are completely full
I’ve just been told this is normal. Everyone upgrades on the flight home. Wasting their money when they could have free rows of seats in economy. Its a party atmos back here
Advice: fly economy if you come home from the Maldives
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I'm a federalist, so I don't see much appeal either in continuing a broken failed union or splitting Scotland off. But as you say, self-determination is everything. If Scotland voted for independence I'd back it. But that prospect is receding rapidly.
All governments run out of ideas and energy - the Scottish government is no different in that respect to the British one. Wings wants Yousless out - and we're talking about a Rishi replacement south of the wall.
So we are heading into a new electoral cycle where one goes likely late 24 and the other mid 26. I think Scotland will have had a change of FM by then - possibly 2. It isn't just the battle for power and control of the party, they are battling to save the soul of independence. So that heightens the tension.
Might we see Mr Salmond feted at the SNP conference in a year or two, the way that Mr Farage was this year with the Tories...
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
The parallels with Corbyn and Labour are too obvious. This is the fork in the road time.It seems the new fashion in political parties. It took Cameron and Hilton a long time and a lot of effort to get back to the centre and there's no doubt the Tories are in a worse state now than they were in then . If they go the Braverman route its possible they'll never recover in their present form and will actually split..
Daniel John Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere (born 1 September 1971) is a British writer, journalist and politician. He is currently a sitting member of the House of Lords where he takes the Conservative whip
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
That might well be the case, but it finds its most comfortable home on the right.
I’m really not sure that’s true
On the right I think you find more confusion and bewilderment. They don’t understand what the fight is even about
Eg it’s noticeable that the bitterest online trans arguments tend to be between LEFT wing feminist women - J K Rowling, Joanna Cherry - and the trans militants
I agree. Trans activists are desperate to find right wing opponents but have largely been met by a shrug and a distinct lack of interest. It is women's rights supporters that have taken up the cudgels which is why this is such an uncomfortable fight for the activists. The "rights" they are claiming trample on hard won rights for women and women are not happy about it, and rightly so.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
If the Scots consider themselves Scots not Brits and that England is another country, then on the exact same grounds of democracy and sovereignty as Brexit they should be an independent sovereign country.
Similarly if an English/British individual wanted to be in a country called Europe then there's no democracy or sovereignty reasons they shouldn't have voted Remain, but the EU really needs reforming to better become a single country with a more powerful demos, Parliament and elected Government.
Personally I consider myself English. I think we'd be better off as an independent England, but if the Scots or Welsh or NI want to tag along with us it doesn't matter too much that I'd make it a priority issue, but if I were Scottish it absolutely would be a priority issue.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
The UK changed only 100 years ago, we can have another 100?
The U.K. has to deserve it. Does the U.K. deserve to survive in its current form, or at all? Views differ.
Anyway, it’s not up to me. I don’t see the quality of life of people in the Netherlands being particularly impacted by the formation of Belgium, or the Czechs by Slovakia, or indeed this country by the emergence of the Irish state. If they want to go let them. For us English to say “you need to stay for your own good” is paternalism at best, imperialism at worst.
I think if the Scottish Parliament wants a referendum it should have one. I just would like to support them to vote no in that referendum.
I don't understand why British people expressing a view about another part of Britain is paternalistic - the decision should still be made by Scotland, and there should have been a second ref because that's what they voted for, but anyone can have an opinion about anything, it's not nothing to do with anyone else.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
That might well be the case, but it finds its most comfortable home on the right.
I’m really not sure that’s true
On the right I think you find more confusion and bewilderment. They don’t understand what the fight is even about
Eg it’s noticeable that the bitterest online trans arguments tend to be between LEFT wing feminist women - J K Rowling, Joanna Cherry - and the trans militants
I agree. Trans activists are desperate to find right wing opponents but have largely been met by a shrug and a distinct lack of interest. It is women's rights supporters that have taken up the cudgels which is why this is such an uncomfortable fight for the activists. The "rights" they are claiming trample on hard won rights for women and women are not happy about it, and rightly so.
Or those opponents who are sincerely motivated by women's rights are really acting as the dupes of bigots who are too canny openly to oppose trans rights as a matter of principle.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
The UK changed only 100 years ago, we can have another 100?
The U.K. has to deserve it. Does the U.K. deserve to survive in its current form, or at all? Views differ.
Anyway, it’s not up to me. I don’t see the quality of life of people in the Netherlands being particularly impacted by the formation of Belgium, or the Czechs by Slovakia, or indeed this country by the emergence of the Irish state. If they want to go let them. For us English to say “you need to stay for your own good” is paternalism at best, imperialism at worst.
I believe polling in both Czechia and Slovakia shows a majority regret the split.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
Good thing we had a open, democratic debate about the advantages and disadvantages of continuing HS2 beyond Birmingham.
Oh.
(Seriously, there is a valid argument about whether democracy can work across nations. But any claims about Brexit strengthening British democracy have rather been binned by the actions of the incumbents since 2019.)
just watched the BBC by-election prog and can’t help feeling SNP deputy leader Keith Brown would have done well to show at least a little humility. the sort of arrogance he displayed throughout reminds me of scottish labour 20 years ago, when complacency preceded catastrophe.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
The parallels with Corbyn and Labour are too obvious. This is the fork in the road time.It seems the new fashion in political parties. It took Cameron and Hilton a long time and a lot of effort to get back to the centre and there's no doubt the Tories are in a worse state now than they were in then . If they go the Braverman route its possible they'll never recover in their present form and will actually split..
I think the split between the "closet racists and fruitcakes" and actual conservatives happened when Johnson removed most Conservatives from the Tory Party, The Populist Party on full display at Manchester, while it is still trading on being conservative, it clearly is not, and indeed is contemptuous of most conservative values.
A lot of conservatives are now politically homeless, but, as we see in the home counties, they are toying with the the idea of voting for the Liberal Democrats. There is merit in this, since new parties do not have a good track record, and people like Rory Stewart are supporting things like PR that will make them very welcome in the Lib Dems.
So, I think we will see growing support for Davey´s party, and continuing deflation of Tory support, as conservatives defect from one to the other.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
It has been taken over by UKIP. In all but name. The Tory party as was is gone. Whether it will ever come back who knows. At the moment I doubt it. When even someone like @DavidL is losing faith, what hope is there.
It really hasn't. It may have some UKIP tendencies but would UKIP allow the level of migration we currently have, or the boats to continue, or the high levels of taxation, or the rolling out of the nanny state we are seeing.
No they wouldn't.
I Do not doubt it has lost its mind but its approach to policy is very scattergun. Their approach to policies is like the scene in Reggie Perrin where they are discussing advertising slogans and their approach is "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" that was very much last weeks approach.
They also deserve to be hoofed out.
There's three chunks to your "would UKIP?" question: 1. would UKIP/ReFUK/ReFox etc allow the boats to continue? How would they stop them? Its very easy to use crayons to make policy. We've had two years of stupid "emergency" legislation to Stop the Boats which have achieved nothing. The Nigel (for it is He) likes his dinghy in the channel - what would he do? Use the navy to tow them? The navy say no. How would they act? In detail...? 2. high levels of taxation. The problem now for any government is that there is no money left. Sadly that means high taxes, and any government who tries to do a slash and burn budget will get reamed by the markets again. Various reporters have heard from bods inside the treasury and the bank that the Truss Day of Terror was far far more serious than was openly reported. Chancellor Anne Widdicombe would not be able to just cut taxes. 3. the nanny state. To be fair a Nigel government could probably make smoking mandatory if it wanted to
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Countries/unions/empires end, new countries/unions/empires form. It was ever thus. The U.K. isn’t going to last forever. No political entity is. The map of Europe changes all the time.
The UK changed only 100 years ago, we can have another 100?
The U.K. has to deserve it. Does the U.K. deserve to survive in its current form, or at all? Views differ.
Anyway, it’s not up to me. I don’t see the quality of life of people in the Netherlands being particularly impacted by the formation of Belgium, or the Czechs by Slovakia, or indeed this country by the emergence of the Irish state. If they want to go let them. For us English to say “you need to stay for your own good” is paternalism at best, imperialism at worst.
I believe polling in both Czechia and Slovakia shows a majority regret the split.
Czechoslovakia was a rather artificial creation, combining the richest provinces of Austria and one of the poorest of Hungary, but did seem to work for a while.
The way the campaigns played out is interesting too - Labour trying out a method of Anas Sarwar running local messages against backdrop of Keir Starmer pitching more to former Tory voters in England, and SNP testing attack lines vs Labour and how hard they can go on independence
It gives Keir Starmer a boost ahead of his conference this weekend - but poses real questions for Humza Yousaf ahead of the SNP one the following weekend. Particularly given delegates will be debating an independence strategy which hinges on winning lots of Westminster seats…
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
That is too passive. The Union cannot rely just on the status quo, it must show that it is relevant and adds to the lives of all of the parts of the polity, including Scotland. The weakness of Unionism was that this was ignored for too long. A situation where Scottish Labour MPs give Labour a UK majority is something of a sweet spot in such scenarios and fundamentally undermines the moans of Nats who complain that we get Tory governments from the Union that few Scots (well, actually about 20%) have voted for.
Person rents an Airbnb, doesn't move out and the landlord can't do a thing about it because the property doesn't have full permission...
That's kind of funny, and also a bit karmic justice.
The landlord was pulling a fast one, the building wasn't to code, not just didn't have permission to be let as an AirBnB but it had several code violations too. He was playing fast and loose with the rules, so now someone has turned the rules against him.
I'm not in favour of being required to ask for permission, but am in favour of building codes, they ensure buildings are safe and habitable. You should be allowed to build or let what you want on your own land, but the building absolutely should be up to code and properly habitable before you do.
Too many landlords in this country let substandard slums and get away with it because there's no alternative and no recourse for tenants.
Lots of reasons for the SNP to lose: financial chicanery, the Calmac ferries, really poor legislation - much of which has had to be withdrawn or challenged, waste of money, dancing to the tune of monomaniac lobbyists, failure to make good on promises, in-fighting, arrogance.
This is what is happening to the Tories. And will result in similar electoral misfortune.
Labour publicly learnt a lesson from the SNP's problems with the GRR Bill and made a change to their stated policy. That I think is one of Starmer's strengths. He doesn't simply say he will learn lessons. He actually shows this. It has been criticised as dreary triangulation by some or breaking promises by others. And there is a risk that he looks untrustworthy. But his willingness to change tack, say so publicly and say why is potentially heartening.
And @Heathener, women's rights are not inconsequential or irrelevant. You sound very gammon-like saying stuff like that. Much like the SNP's counsel this week saying that women's rights to associate freely with other women was "trivial". That was the word used. Trivial. With luck the end of the SNP will stop such condescending and offensive rubbish being uttered by them and their fellow travellers.
Yes, I think Starmers policy on Trans rights is a well balanced one on a very contentious issue that respects sex-based rights but avoids the repellent Trans-phobia on display last week. It is where I am on the issue, and it is also a position that most of the country can live with too.
Once again the focus is always on trans rights when it is not their rights which are the issue (they have exactly the same rights as everyone else). But the effect of giving them a privilege which no other group has on the rights of others.
Labour's position on women's right and the Equality Act is better than it was certainly. It needs clarifying in certain respects. There is a worrying silence about single sex services and associations which must be protected, for instance. https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/questions-questions/
It is largely a result of pressure from a lot of Labour women - young women - especially Labour Women's Declaration even though, shamefully, they have not been allowed a stand at the Labour conference. As for what the Tories announced this week, Barclay said that he would ensure single sex wards, a promise made in 2010 but since broken repeatedly. It is entirely supported by Labour. As for the PM's statement in his speech, this was announced by Kay Burley to be in breach of the EA. Which shows only that she - like many others - hasn't the first clue what the Act actually says.
Anyway in a week's time I shall be in Glasgow at a feminist conference. Lots of interesting international speakers. I shall report back!
I agree that there need to be sex related rights too, but really hate the Transphopia coming from the right.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
That might well be the case, but it finds its most comfortable home on the right.
I’m really not sure that’s true
On the right I think you find more confusion and bewilderment. They don’t understand what the fight is even about
Eg it’s noticeable that the bitterest online trans arguments tend to be between LEFT wing feminist women - J K Rowling, Joanna Cherry - and the trans militants
I agree. Trans activists are desperate to find right wing opponents but have largely been met by a shrug and a distinct lack of interest. It is women's rights supporters that have taken up the cudgels which is why this is such an uncomfortable fight for the activists. The "rights" they are claiming trample on hard won rights for women and women are not happy about it, and rightly so.
Or those opponents who are sincerely motivated by women's rights are really acting as the dupes of bigots who are too canny openly to oppose trans rights as a matter of principle.
So J K Rowling is actually some willing dupe of a secret cabal of super clever anti-Trans Nazis?
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
If the Scots consider themselves Scots not Brits and that England is another country, then on the exact same grounds of democracy and sovereignty as Brexit they should be an independent sovereign country.
Similarly if an English/British individual wanted to be in a country called Europe then there's no democracy or sovereignty reasons they shouldn't have voted Remain, but the EU really needs reforming to better become a single country with a more powerful demos, Parliament and elected Government.
Personally I consider myself English. I think we'd be better off as an independent England, but if the Scots or Welsh or NI want to tag along with us it doesn't matter too much that I'd make it a priority issue, but if I were Scottish it absolutely would be a priority issue.
Your post encapsulates a major problem: why do you feel the need to define your nationality at all?
Of course, we all do it because we are forced to at times (e.g. on official and not so official forms) but generally I feel nationality is an unhelpful concept developed over centuries to control and coerce people. There is nothing physical that defines one's 'nation'.
I think we've all been brain-washed to believe nationality is an essential part of our being when it isn't.
(Citizenship however is different: a set of rights and responsibilities that people acquire through chance or design, upon which society depends.)
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
That is too passive. The Union cannot rely just on the status quo, it must show that it is relevant and adds to the lives of all of the parts of the polity, including Scotland. The weakness of Unionism was that this was ignored for too long. A situation where Scottish Labour MPs give Labour a UK majority is something of a sweet spot in such scenarios and fundamentally undermines the moans of Nats who complain that we get Tory governments from the Union that few Scots (well, actually about 20%) have voted for.
I don’t disagree. I was merely pointing out that the UK also has rights of self determination as a whole nation. Which it is
And that is as it should be, because if Scotland ever did secede that would massively impact everyone else in Britain. Mainly for the worse in economic terms, at first, as it would guarantee chaos and investors would flee
Happily, last night’a result means Sindy is a very distant prospect. It won’t be revisited this decade at least (but yes, this is not an excuse for complacency)
Comments
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen by between 6,000 and 10,000 depending on turnout. I expect Labour to take between 60% and 70% of the vote. I expect the Conservatives to lose their deposit.
Ok, I overestimated the Labour percentage. A few more SNP voters actually voted than I expected.
I know two Trans people fairly well, one being Fox-jrs flat mate who I have known for a decade, the other a cousin who is non binary, but inclining to be a Trans-man.. Both have some mental health issues, and this is tangled up with their gender issues in complex ways, but ultimately they are good, kind people who need support from friends and family.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
Yep there may be swing back to the Tories in England but I don’t see that north of the border - the SNP are currently on a downward slope after x years in power…
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
He is terrible, they're falling in the polls, and making terrible long term decisions.
Roll those dice.
Of course there are about 25-35 MPs who are staunch Trussites, too, so it doesn't need many more to write their letter to Sir Graham to get to that vote of confidence that always does for leaders within 6 months even if they win....
Labour have the best chance of large numbers of seats, and given the Tories will lose some of theirs in Scotland at the very least, that's all the better.
So even a result half of what's seen here would be a great recovery.
I expect Labour majority odds will spike and mid beds will now go red.
I was wondering why Dr Daniel Jackson was following TSE.
I have to agree on the conference bit though. Had Penny emerged the star, it would have been encouraging that she could have taken over. But she didn't, and I don't see Suella stepping aside for her. Suella has undoubted qualities, but she's very divisive in a way that even Boris wasn't.
Amington (Tamworth) council by-election result:
LAB: 42.9% (-7.8)
CON: 33.7% (-15.6)
IND: 15.5% (+15.5)
REF: 6.3% (+6.3)
UKIP: 1.6% (+1.6)
Votes cast: 1,560
Labour HOLD.
I think Starmer looks likely to win a clean sweep of the 3 byelections. I hope it doesn't lead to too much Labour hubris.
Abolish the NHS ?
The mandate to govern is now paper thin at best. Another change would be universally seen as taking the piss.
To get only 700 fewer votes than the last GE at a by-election is absolutely remarkable.
Of course my standing as a prophet will be weakened by the thought that I thought the SNP might hold
And good morning, one, and all!
Badenoch or Barclay, hmmm? No change.
So for the win you have to go Braverman nuclear. She could do it with some insane populism, but the cost to the country would be immeasurable.
Best to stick with Rishi and hope for a black swan.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
We’ve had a few months of poor Tory polling but with Labour slipping a little vs Lib Dem and a small SNP recovery. But not tonight.
Public opinion is at least partly about backing the winner, and this result plus all the coverage of conference in the coming week, which will surely be more successful than the CPC just gone, has got to give them a boost. Up to high 40s for a while I reckon.
A good night being a 2017 style result and a bad one most seats but dropping below half?
The Labour vote increased by 3k at the Selby by-election.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
SOP at by-elections I believe is to win with much fewer votes than last time.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
A chill gets me out of bed though hardly full of the joys of autumn.
A strong result for Labour before their Conference and a good step on the road for the party on its journey back to power. The prospect of re-establishing its presence in Scottish politics (no one is talking about a Conservative wipeout as in 1997 it seems).is a step toward building that voting coalition and majority.
As with other by-elections (bar Uxbridge), the Conservative vote disintegrated (the LDs did little better) to Labour or stayed at home,
Labour now has its Conference and for the first time in many years it's in the position of being taken seriously - we know there will be a strong business presence for example. Doubtless the Mail, Express and others will try to whip the slightest hint of dissent or disagreement with Starmer into some frenetic sceptre of chaos and division but those commentators who lavished praise on Braverman and Sunak's efforts this week can hardly be expected (or trusted) to give a reasonable and objective analysis of Starmer or Reeves.
Starmer may be Blair without the charisma but he's realised, like Blair, Labour never wins when it is too radical (it did in 1945 under unique circumstances). The route to power lies in reassuring the disillusioned or angry ex-Conservative voters and that re-assurance has to go on right up to Polling Day. Things won't change too much but they will be done "better". This week, Sunak has written his version of the infamous Liam Byrne note from 2010 and that will temper expectations and give Starmer a nice big target to aim at both next week and for years to come.
Next week will be all about re-assurance - if there is a hint of second term radicalism, it will stay hidden for now. It's all about getting the election won and then getting on with Government. Part of that re-assurance will be to not sound hubristic - Starmer knows the Conservatives aren't finished and they will fight and claw and cling on to the very end - it won't be edifying and the country will suffer but that's how politics works.
I fear for my two Trans friends and family in such a hostile environment. Suicide is very possible for at least one of the two youngsters.
(One of the symptoms of Conservative decay is the number of people on the right who simply don't get that Johnson, then Truss, simply had to go and simply cannot return.)
Sunak is definitely surprising on the downside; poor in the ways expected (poor communicator, a trip of right wingers that isn't where the country is) and unexpectedly bad in carrying over the flaws of Johnson and Truss (slippery sod who generates bad ideas via a closed clique).
Rolling the dice again is the sort of desperate act that might attract a desperate party. But it's not easy to see who the GE winner waiting in the wings is. Heck, it's hard to see who takes over is Rishi is run over by a rail replacement bus.
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
No they wouldn't.
I Do not doubt it has lost its mind but its approach to policy is very scattergun. Their approach to policies is like the scene in Reggie Perrin where they are discussing advertising slogans and their approach is "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" that was very much last weeks approach.
They also deserve to be hoofed out.
Scottish and Northern Irish politics are fossilised over these Constitutional issues, and Wales too to a lesser degree. Scottish independence and Irish unification look the only way to break that deadlock.
I see the future as smaller states within a looser EU.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
1. Britain has been a remarkably successful political union for 300 years. You don’t just casually chuck that away
2. Accepting that polities evolve is a long way from willingly desiring their break up
Philip Haigh
@philatrail
HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
Great fucking job...
I used to know Amington quite well. Nice area. Would never have thought it labour. But that was mid nineties.
On the right I think you find more confusion and bewilderment. They don’t understand what the fight is even about
Eg it’s noticeable that the bitterest online trans arguments tend to be between LEFT wing feminist women - J K Rowling, Joanna Cherry - and the trans militants
FpTP has been kind to the SNP in Westminster, but that gearing can reverse quickly. SNP on 6-10 at Westminster could well be on the cards.
Maybe we need more meat tax
Of course that doesn't mean the new leader cannot through their own choices and qualities make things worse, but things former leaders could brush past they just cannot.
Anyway, it’s not up to me. I don’t see the quality of life of people in the Netherlands being particularly impacted by the formation of Belgium, or the Czechs by Slovakia, or indeed this country by the emergence of the Irish state. If they want to go let them. For us English to say “you need to stay for your own good” is paternalism at best, imperialism at worst.
I’m in economy class. I considered an upgrade but it turns out economy is 2/3 empty whereas premium and Business are completely full
I’ve just been told this is normal. Everyone upgrades on the flight home. Wasting their money when they could have free rows of seats in economy. Its a party atmos back here
Advice: fly economy if you come home from the Maldives
All governments run out of ideas and energy - the Scottish government is no different in that respect to the British one. Wings wants Yousless out - and we're talking about a Rishi replacement south of the wall.
So we are heading into a new electoral cycle where one goes likely late 24 and the other mid 26. I think Scotland will have had a change of FM by then - possibly 2. It isn't just the battle for power and control of the party, they are battling to save the soul of independence. So that heightens the tension.
Might we see Mr Salmond feted at the SNP conference in a year or two, the way that Mr Farage was this year with the Tories...
I am not surprised.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
https://www.foxla.com/news/airbnb-guest-refuses-to-leave-brentwood-rental-home-after-500-days-without-paying
Person rents an Airbnb, doesn't move out and the landlord can't do a thing about it because the property doesn't have full permission...
Similarly if an English/British individual wanted to be in a country called Europe then there's no democracy or sovereignty reasons they shouldn't have voted Remain, but the EU really needs reforming to better become a single country with a more powerful demos, Parliament and elected Government.
Personally I consider myself English. I think we'd be better off as an independent England, but if the Scots or Welsh or NI want to tag along with us it doesn't matter too much that I'd make it a priority issue, but if I were Scottish it absolutely would be a priority issue.
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
I don't understand why British people expressing a view about another part of Britain is paternalistic - the decision should still be made by Scotland, and there should have been a second ref because that's what they voted for, but anyone can have an opinion about anything, it's not nothing to do with anyone else.
Oh.
(Seriously, there is a valid argument about whether democracy can work across nations. But any claims about Brexit strengthening British democracy have rather been binned by the actions of the incumbents since 2019.)
just watched the BBC by-election prog and can’t help feeling SNP deputy leader Keith Brown would have done well to show at least a little humility. the sort of arrogance he displayed throughout reminds me of scottish labour 20 years ago, when complacency preceded catastrophe.
A lot of conservatives are now politically homeless, but, as we see in the home counties, they are toying with the the idea of voting for the Liberal Democrats. There is merit in this, since new parties do not have a good track record, and people like Rory Stewart are supporting things like PR that will make them very welcome in the Lib Dems.
So, I think we will see growing support for Davey´s party, and continuing deflation of Tory support, as conservatives defect from one to the other.
1. would UKIP/ReFUK/ReFox etc allow the boats to continue? How would they stop them? Its very easy to use crayons to make policy. We've had two years of stupid "emergency" legislation to Stop the Boats which have achieved nothing. The Nigel (for it is He) likes his dinghy in the channel - what would he do? Use the navy to tow them? The navy say no. How would they act? In detail...?
2. high levels of taxation. The problem now for any government is that there is no money left. Sadly that means high taxes, and any government who tries to do a slash and burn budget will get reamed by the markets again. Various reporters have heard from bods inside the treasury and the bank that the Truss Day of Terror was far far more serious than was openly reported. Chancellor Anne Widdicombe would not be able to just cut taxes.
3. the nanny state. To be fair a Nigel government could probably make smoking mandatory if it wanted to
Just waking up to the news.
The way the campaigns played out is interesting too - Labour trying out a method of Anas Sarwar running local messages against backdrop of Keir Starmer pitching more to former Tory voters in England, and SNP testing attack lines vs Labour and how hard they can go on independence
@BBCPhilipSim
It gives Keir Starmer a boost ahead of his conference this weekend - but poses real questions for Humza Yousaf ahead of the SNP one the following weekend. Particularly given delegates will be debating an independence strategy which hinges on winning lots of Westminster seats…
The landlord was pulling a fast one, the building wasn't to code, not just didn't have permission to be let as an AirBnB but it had several code violations too. He was playing fast and loose with the rules, so now someone has turned the rules against him.
I'm not in favour of being required to ask for permission, but am in favour of building codes, they ensure buildings are safe and habitable. You should be allowed to build or let what you want on your own land, but the building absolutely should be up to code and properly habitable before you do.
Too many landlords in this country let substandard slums and get away with it because there's no alternative and no recourse for tenants.
Do you realise how that sounds?
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*.
3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
Of course, we all do it because we are forced to at times (e.g. on official and not so official forms) but generally I feel nationality is an unhelpful concept developed over centuries to control and coerce people. There is nothing physical that defines one's 'nation'.
I think we've all been brain-washed to believe nationality is an essential part of our being when it isn't.
(Citizenship however is different: a set of rights and responsibilities that people acquire through chance or design, upon which society depends.)
And that is as it should be, because if Scotland ever did secede that would massively impact everyone else in Britain. Mainly for the worse in economic terms, at first, as it would guarantee chaos and investors would flee
Happily, last night’a result means Sindy is a very distant prospect. It won’t be revisited this decade at least (but yes, this is not an excuse for complacency)