I've just put my PP winnings from turnout - over 75% at 5/6 from June - onto Conservatives as largest party at GE15 at 11/10. My reading is that the combination of SLAB/ELAB infighting and Miliband spinelessness will damage their ability to attack; Cameron taking the initiative on EVFEL will pull back some UKIP switchers, and; Osborne's employment boom will harness the 'don't let that lot put it all at risk again' vote that we saw in the IndyRef. I could, of course, be wrong, but it tallies with the premonition I've had for some time that the Conservatives will win precisely the same number of seats as last time. What odds could I get on 306 Conservative and Unionist (sic) Party MPs (not including the Speaker) at GE2015?
I also wonder how this offer of EV4EL will play out in the polls over the next few months, it couldbe a real black swan moment for Dave and Ed and could put the Tories up in the polls.
"This was a vote for solidarity and social justice. It was a vote for our NHS, for the welfare state, and for unity — because we are better together.
But whether people voted Yes or No, this was also a vote for change.
We must change the way the UK is governed and who it is run for. And that thirst for change is not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK.
We need more good jobs and job security. We need decent wages and an end to poverty pay. We need a better future for our young people so they can believe they can have a better life than their parents.
The last few weeks have been about keeping our country together. The next eight months will be about showing how we can change our country together.
There is only one party that can do it — and that is our party."
Bland rubbish . The Tories have at least made specific proposals
I'm still awake and I still feel a million 'pounds'.
Lucky you, I fell asleep shortly after the Orkney result but still feel like shit cooled down! Afternoon snooze beckons shortly.
I had a wobble and some eye shutting moments through 1am-4am but by 4.30am, I was wide awake again. I decided to live off this very happy feeling and stay up until I see the paper front pages on Sky News at 10.30pm.
Salmond will surely resign now, or soon after the next GE? He looked a broken man in that car.
Sturgeon is ready and able to replace.
If he quits shortly he can retire with honour, having nearly done the inconceivable, and while he is still revered by his disciples; or he can trundle on, gradually earning more resentment.
If he's got any political sense (which he has, in spades) he will go, and go soon.
I've heard the rumbles he'll hold Office until at least the GE in May and handover to Sturgeon then.
Just rumblings mind.
I always had 40% as the danger threshold for Salmond. On that basis, he can plausibly say he shifted the independence cause forward. Disappointment is only relative to the polls a week before the referendum. He doesn't have to go, but it's likely he'll call it a day anyway.Despite his disingenuousness his political goal is an independent Scotland and he won't be able to do anything further on that. Retirement could be a lot more fun for him.
You're underestimating the flexibility of the Great British Constitution. He doesn't have to oppose them to kill them. Hell, his MPs can vote unanimously in favour of whatever Cameron cooks up and he (and other sundry progressives and conservatives) can still make sure they don't get passed into law.
But in practice he'll presumablye able to come up with some good objections to whatever Cameron comes up with, since it'll be: 1) Trying to solve a bunch of basically impossible problems that nobody's been able to solve since 1707 when somebody decided to weld a motorbike onto the side of a bus and call it a car. 2) Designed for maximum Tory political advantage, and probably not very cleverly, as Cameron seems to be a bit clumsy with this stuff.
amazing how much you're pro-political reform, until it's a change you don't like...
Same as it ever was.
Obviously I don't support changes I don't like, but most of what I've said on this thread has been about the politics of it, not what I do or don't support. The fact that there aren't any tidy answers to making a constitution for a little country tacked onto a big country doesn't necessarily mean you can't improve on the status quo, but since it's a hard problem I think it's a mistake to assume Cameron will be able to think of something that gives him an easy political win and leave Labour stuck for a convincing response.
The other thing I'd say from a pro-political-reform standpoint is that it's sadly very hard to get the voters excited about the constitution, no matter how important we might think it is.
After Dave's triumph overnight, it's good to see the Tories storming back into the lead according to Stephen Fisher's latest GE 2015 projection. Based on UKPR's latest average polling figures, he sees the major parties winning the following number of seats next May (also showing last week's comparatives) :
That projection has nothing at all to do with last night. You're a fantastic bettor but I feel it's a little misleading to link last night and Mr Fisher's GE projection !
Labour is layable at 1.75 for most seats on the exchanges btw right now.
Pulpstar - I was having a bit of a tease by simply linking the two items of good news (for us Tories), not the events themselves. But thanks for your kind words anyway.
As it stands just now, Salmond is trying to reposition himself as the Guardian of the Westminster Promises. He is fully aware that having taken 1.6 million supporters and voters up the hill, there will many only too happy to put the boot in on the way back down.
I don't think he will resign willingly, but the gossip is that there has been coup in the planning for about the past week as the internal polling results came into the YES hq.
Having just watched Sturgeon leave the count at Ingliston, she was not a happy bunny. From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.
After Dave's triumph overnight, it's good to see the Tories storming back into the lead according to Stephen Fisher's latest GE 2015 projection. Based on UKPR's latest average polling figures, he sees the major parties winning the following number of seats next May (also showing last week's comparatives) :
That projection has nothing at all to do with last night. You're a fantastic bettor but I feel it's a little misleading to link last night and Mr Fisher's GE projection !
Labour is layable at 1.75 for most seats on the exchanges btw right now.
Pulpstar - I was having a bit of a tease by simply linking the two items of good news (for us Tories), not the events themselves. But thanks for your kind words anyway.
Well done on the 40-45% call at 2-1, it was one of those bets I considered but didn't take.
I need to actually calculate my p&l/outstanding bet positions tonight. Not done so for a while...
....friend of mine, an everyman type who rarely expresses any political interest or views apart from distaste for Bullingdon types, UKIP and the monarchy, and lives in a northern seat not a million miles from Rochdale, texted me thusly this morning
"English votes for English laws? F*cking right. John redwood 100% right. Jock MPs can f*ck right off."
Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.
Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.
No, I have always supported PR. If you believe that laws for England should reflect the views of the English electorate then I do not see how you can justify excluding millions of English people from that process by denying parties they voted for representation.
Er? I can't understand that. We don't have PR at the moment, so you can make the argument that at the moment, the UK parliament doesn't reflect the views of the UK electorate.
But PR and EV4EL are mutually exclusive. You can have both, you can have neither (like now), or you can have one or the other.
The question is would EV4EL be fairer than it is now...answer YES. Would PR be fairer than it is now..maybe. But the two aren't directly linked,and certainly not joined at the hip.
EV4EL surely means that the wishes of the majority of English voters are respected when it comes to legislating on English-only matters. A situation in which a minority can block the wishes of a majority is not sustainable.
It's been sustained for a long time so far! Why is it any less sustainable under EV4EL? That's the problem, you keep making these extremely vauge statements to try to conflate the two issues, but you haven't drawn any kind of clear concrete link.
Once you raise fairness for English voters as an issue - and it is absolutely right that it should be raised - then people start looking in a lot more detail at what constitutes fairness.
In 2005 Labour won less votes than the Tories in England, but more seats. It could easily happen again.
So you're just gonna completely ignore the fact you called this one as bad as Romney for Prez, and just keep giving us the benefit of your non-existent "wisdom"?
Do you not think a period of contrite silence is in order, given that right now you look like a clueless halfwit?
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
You're underestimating the flexibility of the Great British Constitution. He doesn't have to oppose them to kill them. Hell, his MPs can vote unanimously in favour of whatever Cameron cooks up and he (and other sundry progressives and conservatives) can still make sure they don't get passed into law.
But in practice he'll presumablye able to come up with some good objections to whatever Cameron comes up with, since it'll be: 1) Trying to solve a bunch of basically impossible problems that nobody's been able to solve since 1707 when somebody decided to weld a motorbike onto the side of a bus and call it a car. 2) Designed for maximum Tory political advantage, and probably not very cleverly, as Cameron seems to be a bit clumsy with this stuff.
amazing how much you're pro-political reform, until it's a change you don't like...
You're underestimating the flexibility of the Great British Constitution. He doesn't have to oppose them to kill them. Hell, his MPs can vote unanimously in favour of whatever Cameron cooks up and he (and other sundry progressives and conservatives) can still make sure they don't get passed into law.
But in practice he'll presumablye able to come up with some good objections to whatever Cameron comes up with, since it'll be: 1) Trying to solve a bunch of basically impossible problems that nobody's been able to solve since 1707 when somebody decided to weld a motorbike onto the side of a bus and call it a car. 2) Designed for maximum Tory political advantage, and probably not very cleverly, as Cameron seems to be a bit clumsy with this stuff.
amazing how much you're pro-political reform, until it's a change you don't like...
Same as it ever was.
Obviously I don't support changes I don't like, but most of what I've said on this thread has been about the politics of it, not what I do or don't support. The fact that there aren't any tidy answers to making a constitution for a little country tacked onto a big country doesn't necessarily mean you can't improve on the status quo, but since it's a hard problem I think it's a mistake to assume Cameron will be able to think of something that gives him an easy political win and leave Labour stuck for a convincing response.
The other thing I'd say from a pro-political-reform standpoint is that it's sadly very hard to get the voters excited about the constitution, no matter how important we might think it is.
Given you've just had 80+% voting on a matter of the 'constitution', that's clearly not true.. It's how you present it, and how radical you are.
Good Afternoon from sunny Catalonia (sea water temp is 26C).
Some disappointment here at the Indy\Ref result as there was some expectation that if YES had won, then Scotland would be pioneering the Independence route - esp wrt the EU.
Some have a view that Salmond lost the vote as he made claims that he could not deliver.
Regarding today's published YouGov on the GE (33/35/8/14/5), LD's 2010 split shows the lowest loss to Labour this year of 24% (usually in the 30s).
YouGov asked also: "The next election is not expected to be until May 2015. Will you definitely vote this way, or might you change your mind?"
Only 46% were definite that they would not change their mind 50% of Cons; 60% of LAB; 30% of LDs and 40% of UKIP).
Another 29% said "I will probably vote this way, it is very unlikely that I will change my mind."
I also wonder how this offer of EV4EL will play out in the polls over the next few months, it couldbe a real black swan moment for Dave and Ed and could put the Tories up in the polls.
Doubt it. YouGov at the weekend showed that people aren't anywhere near as exercised as the Tory commentariat are. When asked about the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters, half of people said either that they didn't know or that they were happy with the status quo.
Also, I think it's too technical for many people to follow. Most people really have no - really, NONE - understanding of how Parliament works at all.
This comment just appeared on James Kelly's website:
"The No voters are racists, Quislings, Morons, Bigots and scum.
Every single one of them, including my parents, voted so exterminate Scotland.
There can be no excuses for voting No. NONE! They are the enemy of freedom. The enemy of truth. the enemy of Life itself.
Never forgive them. They chose their fate."
If I didn't know better, I'd say that was written by me, pastiching malcolm g.
Brilliant.
Ah, random capitalisation. The one true sign of the completely deranged. Almost makes me nostalgic for the happy days of trolling fundys on alt.atheism.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
"This was a vote for solidarity and social justice. It was a vote for our NHS, for the welfare state, and for unity — because we are better together.
But whether people voted Yes or No, this was also a vote for change.
We must change the way the UK is governed and who it is run for. And that thirst for change is not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK.
We need more good jobs and job security. We need decent wages and an end to poverty pay. We need a better future for our young people so they can believe they can have a better life than their parents.
The last few weeks have been about keeping our country together. The next eight months will be about showing how we can change our country together.
There is only one party that can do it — and that is our party."
Bland rubbish . The Tories have at least made specific proposals
Correct - he is trying to turn a vote which was fundamentally for no change into a vote suggesting not only a demand for change but socialist change (when in fact it was the rampant demands for a more socialist scotland that have been defeated). Socialist smoke and mirrors.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
Obviously I don't support changes I don't like, but most of what I've said on this thread has been about the politics of it, not what I do or don't support. The fact that there aren't any tidy answers to making a constitution for a little country tacked onto a big country doesn't necessarily mean you can't improve on the status quo, but since it's a hard problem I think it's a mistake to assume Cameron will be able to think of something that gives him an easy political win and leave Labour stuck for a convincing response.
The other thing I'd say from a pro-political-reform standpoint is that it's sadly very hard to get the voters excited about the constitution, no matter how important we might think it is.
Given you've just had 80+% voting on a matter of the 'constitution', that's clearly not true.. It's how you present it, and how radical you are.
Well, that's about what country you're going to be in, which has a lot of very direct, obvious consequences. It's a fundamentally different kind of thing from a question about which Westminster divisions Scottish MPs are allowed to vote in, or whether you get to choose how your vote is reallocated if your first choice isn't in the top two, or whether members of the deliberative chamber should be directly elected or appointed by the PM.
Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.
Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.
No, I have always supported PR. If you believe that laws for England should reflect the views of the English electorate then I do not see how you can justify excluding millions of English people from that process by denying parties they voted for representation.
Er? I can't understand that. We don't have PR at the moment, so you can make the argument that at the moment, the UK parliament doesn't reflect the views of the UK electorate.
But PR and EV4EL are mutually exclusive. You can have both, you can have neither (like now), or you can have one or the other.
The question is would EV4EL be fairer than it is now...answer YES. Would PR be fairer than it is now..maybe. But the two aren't directly linked,and certainly not joined at the hip.
EV4EL surely means that the wishes of the majority of English voters are respected when it comes to legislating on English-only matters. A situation in which a minority can block the wishes of a majority is not sustainable.
With have that situation at the moment with FPTP anyway in the UK with a party able to get a majority on 35% of the vote. PR has got nothing whatsoever to do with EV4EL except the fact that the latter would damage Labour and their inbuilt electoral advantage.
Their supporters just want to change the system to suit themselves yet again.
FIVE STEPS TO A NEW UK CONSTITUTION. 1.Devo Max powers(hereafter called domestic powers) agreed for Scotland. 2.Same (domestic ) powers devolved to English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments. 3 Agreement that MP’s can only vote in their own Parliaments. 4.Small elected second chamber for non domestic UK issues such as defence ,foreign affairs, financial security, UK transport infrastructure. 5.English parliament decides on plan for devolution of powers to local government.
As it stands just now, Salmond is trying to reposition himself as the Guardian of the Westminster Promises. He is fully aware that having taken 1.6 million supporters and voters up the hill, there will many only too happy to put the boot in on the way back down.
I don't think he will resign willingly, but the gossip is that there has been coup in the planning for about the past week as the internal polling results came into the YES hq.
Having just watched Sturgeon leave the count at Ingliston, she was not a happy bunny. From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.
The referendum was very winnable for Yes, in fact a week ago a Yes majority looked likely, but Salmond botched the end game. He's finished.
SeanT seems to have spend the entire morning goading Scottish independence supporters on other blogs, gloating over his prescience on this blog, lambasting everyone who disagrees with from JackW to Simon Jenkins, awarding the SeanT Prize for Politeness to Carnyx, and now banishing Southam for poor predictive powers.
Surely, the most ludicrous creature over the last 6 months has been SeanT.
Wildly vacillating between haranguing Scottish posters when No were in the lead, and sobbing and blubbering when Yes were in the lead, it has been a horrible spectacle.
"Please don't go, please don't go. Think of my daughter, she'll be stateless. You can have my car. You can have my Primrose Hill flat. Money, do you want my money, I've converted it all into dollars because I'm scared shitless, but I'll get you some. I'll get you some. But please, please don't break the Union.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
Tory majority nailed on.
I hear President Romney has just rung Alex Salmond to congratulate him on his victory.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
The voting seemed to break less upon political lines, rather "class" lines.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
It was the same in the 1997 devolution referendum though. For some reason, the SNP's strongest areas are some of those which are least inclined to Scottish self-determination (except Dundee).
Salmond will surely resign now, or soon after the next GE? He looked a broken man in that car. Sturgeon is ready and able to replace. If he quits shortly he can retire with honour, having nearly done the inconceivable, and while he is still revered by his disciples; or he can trundle on, gradually earning more resentment. If he's got any political sense (which he has, in spades) he will go, and go soon.
I disagree. if Salmond sits back and watches the Vow unravel into the shambles it surely will become, Salmond can then have another referendum by gaining MPs at the GE and then keeps power in Scotland in 2016. He is the SNP's best asset and having forced the main 3 westminster parties into a hasty offer, Salmond can sit back and chuck smelly stuff on it saying "you were duped" to the No voters. After all, his main opponent at present is Johan Lamont! Smile please?
Remember (as Mr ex-Flashman pointed out) the huge Yes figures in key Labour areas. One comment I saw (confirmation would be welcome) is that John Reid went white when he saw the Glasgow result.
Are all those going to vote SLAB again? Some will go to SNP or Greens, and others will abstain. Others will I think join any revival or new leftist party going, perhaps from the socialist bits of the Radical Independence Consortium, or Labour for Indy. If such a new Keir Hardieist operation can be formed, then that will split the SLAB vote, with bad effects in 2015. And all that is on top of the public alliance with the Tories which Labour and the LDs have made. Mr Darling said how much he approved of Tory policies, rememeber.
I can see that the Tories might regain the odd MP seat. But people vote SNP for two reasons - to run Scotland (lots don't want Labour to do that), and to get indy, and the SNP have shown that their policy is to decouple the two, and on the latter, let the people decide. They put their money where their mouth is in the teeth of all the other parties and media. In contrast to some people I can think of, and rather closer than Madrid. Brexit, anyone?
I was going to say that a Tory/UKIP win in 2015 would also have its effects on the Scottish election next year, but I begin to wonder given that Mr Miliband is even less popular here (admittedly on some polls) than Mr Cameron.
And which party would you elect to ensure the fulfilment of the Vow that made us vote No?
That's a different matter from who leads the party, but we need to see how the dust settles. It has been a very powerful image - literally - to see Mr Cameron locked away with the financiers near the Commonwealth Pool, when Mr Salmond was outside chatting to the public and having them take selfies with him.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
That's probably because of the ranting Yes lefties that appeared on every single TV debate I saw. Not surprisingly the idea of a Scottish socialist state didn't appeal to voters In Moray.
My you changed your tune. Earlier I was a "winner" and now a "loser". Chortle .....
I'm happy that a month out the ARSE projection picked the trend to YES but clearly not enough. Nevertheless well done on your final prediction yesterday.
More importantly I'd like to apologize to you for the totally graceless comment I made yesterday. It was a very cheap shot and far below the standard I like to maintain.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
Tory majority nailed on.
I hear President Romney has just rung Alex Salmond to congratulate him on his victory.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
That's spot on. Sturgeon delivered Glasgow which should have won it for Yes but Salmond squandered her achievement.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
It was the same in the 1997 devolution referendum though. For some reason, the SNP's strongest areas are some of those which are least inclined to Scottish self-determination (except Dundee).
Because they don't like Labour running the country? They prefer Swinney to handle the finances? Plenty pf people vote SNP to keep Labour our, and/or because they seem more competent generally.
Salmond will surely resign now, or soon after the next GE? He looked a broken man in that car.
Sturgeon is ready and able to replace.
If he quits shortly he can retire with honour, having nearly done the inconceivable, and while he is still revered by his disciples; or he can trundle on, gradually earning more resentment.
If he's got any political sense (which he has, in spades) he will go, and go soon.
I've heard the rumbles he'll hold Office until at least the GE in May and handover to Sturgeon then.
Just rumblings mind.
I always had 40% as the danger threshold for Salmond. On that basis, he can plausibly say he shifted the independence cause forward. Disappointment is only relative to the polls a week before the referendum. He doesn't have to go, but it's likely he'll call it a day anyway.Despite his disingenuousness his political goal is an independent Scotland and he won't be able to do anything further on that. Retirement could be a lot more fun for him.
Your last sentence, I was speaking about that yesterday with someone. We both agreed that, much like you say, there is not much more for Salmond Politically - beyond the warmonger role with Westminster for further powers.
As such, we both reckoned he could do pretty well for himself post Political retirement. I mused 2016 is the absolute longest he'd stick around for.
Write a book and live further well off how he gave 'Westminster a good boot in the stones'.
SeanT seems to have spend the entire morning goading Scottish independence supporters on other blogs, gloating over his prescience on this blog, lambasting everyone who disagrees with from JackW to Simon Jenkins, awarding the SeanT Prize for Politeness to Carnyx, and now banishing Southam for poor predictive powers.
Surely, the most ludicrous creature over the last 6 months has been SeanT.
Wildly vacillating between haranguing Scottish posters when No were in the lead, and sobbing and blubbering when Yes were in the lead, it has been a horrible spectacle.
"Please don't go, please don't go. Think of my daughter, she'll be stateless. You can have my car. You can have my Primrose Hill flat. Money, do you want my money, I've converted it all into dollars because I'm scared shitless, but I'll get you some. I'll get you some. But please, please don't break the Union.
SeanT is the eloquent spokesman of the collective English id. I remember when he went from saying how great and blokish Gordon Brown was after Blair before castigating him as a moron a few weeks later.
IB Times calls the indyref for Farage.Banging on about Europe will stop for a while for a bit of banging on about England.The smiler with a knife in his pocket will be the ultimate winner.The cards are falling Ukip's way.Ukip are getting the rub of the green.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
....friend of mine, an everyman type who rarely expresses any political interest or views apart from distaste for Bullingdon types, UKIP and the monarchy, and lives in a northern seat not a million miles from Rochdale, texted me thusly this morning
"English votes for English laws? F*cking right. John redwood 100% right. Jock MPs can f*ck right off."
Call Me Dave seems to have struck a chord there.
I've had everyone from socialist Scots and centre-left Poles strongly agree with me this morning when I bring up Barnett and/or the WLQ. It's a surefire winner.
''From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.'' - her cat?
It's interesting to note, that if you divide the SNP into 2 blocks - the Sturgeon based Left of Centre, West of Scotland, Labour haven't done anything for you section; and the Salmond based, Tarten Tory, MIddle Class North-East 'True Independance' types - then Sturgeon 'won' her areas (Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, N. Lanark) enough to make it close to 50/50, but Salmond couldn't get close in the likes of supposed SNP Strongholds such as Angus, Moray. That very naive analysis would suggest that Sturgeon has reason to be pissed at Salmond for 'losing' his areas.
It was the same in the 1997 devolution referendum though. For some reason, the SNP's strongest areas are some of those which are least inclined to Scottish self-determination (except Dundee).
Because they don't like Labour running the country? They prefer Swinney to handle the finances? Plenty pf people vote SNP to keep Labour our, and/or because they seem more competent generally.
Excellent point.
People often miss that the SNP often do better than expected as people want to give Labour a good kick.
No, I don't. No-one has to respond to anything I write.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Trust me, I'm going to pay full attention to your GE2015 predictions ^_~
As it stands just now, Salmond is trying to reposition himself as the Guardian of the Westminster Promises. He is fully aware that having taken 1.6 million supporters and voters up the hill, there will many only too happy to put the boot in on the way back down.
I don't think he will resign willingly, but the gossip is that there has been coup in the planning for about the past week as the internal polling results came into the YES hq.
Having just watched Sturgeon leave the count at Ingliston, she was not a happy bunny. From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.
The referendum was very winnable for Yes, in fact a week ago a Yes majority looked likely, but Salmond botched the end game. He's finished.
If one person can be credited for the NO win, then it is Alex Salmond himself - From the outset, he made promises he could not keep, and Scotland saw through him.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
This comment just appeared on James Kelly's website:
"The No voters are racists, Quislings, Morons, Bigots and scum.
Every single one of them, including my parents, voted so exterminate Scotland.
There can be no excuses for voting No. NONE! They are the enemy of freedom. The enemy of truth. the enemy of Life itself.
Never forgive them. They chose their fate."
If I didn't know better, I'd say that was written by me, pastiching malcolm g.
Brilliant.
In justice to JK, he does not moderate posters on his site and he has allowed some fairly offensive postings from the other side, so to speak, to remain even when they were pretty severe wind-ups.
Another thing emerging from the Nat blogs is the inevitable conspiracy-theory-mongering. Some of them are blaming the defeat on "MI5 stuffing the ballot boxes". Read it all on James K's blog.
They're looking in the wrong place. If I was to scent a conspiracy by HMG (I don't) I'd look at those two crucial polls - YouGov and ICM - which had YES in the lead.
Without them, would the NO voters, business leaders and Unionist politicians been galvanised into action?
Just two polls arguably saved the Union....
Huh? The final polls actually slightly underestimated No. So if Yes was going to win without those last-minute interventions there would have inevitably been some polls showing Yes. Which would then have sparked the interventions anyway.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
But not independence - as we (and Scottish voters) saw on issue after issue....
I disagree. EV4EL within the current Parliamentary system is a means to block legislation, not to introduce it. The executive would thus remain UK-wide, but MPs representing English constituencies would have the ability to prevent England-only legislation introduced by the government from becoming law if they so wished. Economic, fiscal, defence and foreign policy would be UK wide and so the PM/Chancellor/Foreign Secretary/Defence Secretary could have a seat in any part of the UK.
The scenario you envisage may pertain if there were a separate English parliament. But I don't think any of the major parties are proposing that, are they?
Perfectly articulated, and better than my longwinded effort on the early thread.
I don't get what's so difficult about this, or why Labour MPs should get their knickers in a twist about "no more Scottish seat PM or Cabinet minister". Yes, if they have a UK majority but no majority in England, they'll have to moderate their "England only" policies and compromise and negotiate with Tories/LDs in England.
So be it, that's democracy. Welcome to the New UK. Their solution is to construct policies that will enable them to win more seats in England. Simple.
Really pleased with the result. Well done to the Scots Unionists who put in the effort. In terms of Wales, I imagine the result could be terminal for Plaid in getting votes above their Welsh language base in the West. They have nothing to offer that the other parties are not offering and the weak dream of independence is all but dead. Still think in a lot of areas it will be English and Welsh votes for laws in Parliament, there is no appetite for the level of devolution Scotland is getting. The Wales Bill in the Lords has the option to vary some income tax subject to a referendum, I think its unlikely the referendum would pass. The extra powers Wales looks to get in the short term is land fill tax and stamp duty. So still only tax raising powers that you would be embarrassed to brag about to a large county council.
Most of my council predictions were within 2-3 points I think, so pleased about that. I correctly forecast that four areas would vote No. I was 1.8 points out on the overall score.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
I'm sure that's true. As I said, impressive. B
As indeed I noticed you did. I was more musing on the contrast - and I can add that I remember how the DT sneered at the SG for doing so.
Another thing emerging from the Nat blogs is the inevitable conspiracy-theory-mongering. Some of them are blaming the defeat on "MI5 stuffing the ballot boxes". Read it all on James K's blog.
They're looking in the wrong place. If I was to scent a conspiracy by HMG (I don't) I'd look at those two crucial polls - YouGov and ICM - which had YES in the lead.
Without them, would the NO voters, business leaders and Unionist politicians been galvanised into action?
Just two polls arguably saved the Union....
Poll enough and you should get a couple of "wrong leader" outliers. Of course the effect of those polls was huge. The three musketeers were woken from their slumber each with a huge vested interest in "No" (Dave's job, Miliband needing to save 40 of his MPs from oblivion, Clegg 11 MPs (For the moment)).
ASDA, Morrisons, RBS all fired out the warning signals too - Wonder if there have been any more monumental outliers in the history of polling ?
I also wonder how this offer of EV4EL will play out in the polls over the next few months, it couldbe a real black swan moment for Dave and Ed and could put the Tories up in the polls.
Doubt it. YouGov at the weekend showed that people aren't anywhere near as exercised as the Tory commentariat are. When asked about the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters, half of people said either that they didn't know or that they were happy with the status quo.
Also, I think it's too technical for many people to follow. Most people really have no - really, NONE - understanding of how Parliament works at all.
It had 60% backing from English voters according to Comres this morning. It used to be a fringe issue, but with Scotland about to get devomax after a very public campaign across the whole country it is no longer a fringe issue. If Labour and the Lib Dems come out against it I do think the Tories will do well in some marginals that they are struggling in and UKIP could clean up in the north where disaffection for Westminster is at an all time high.
FIVE STEPS TO A NEW UK CONSTITUTION. 1.Devo Max powers(hereafter called domestic powers) agreed for Scotland. 2.Same (domestic ) powers devolved to English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments. 3 Agreement that MP’s can only vote in their own Parliaments. 4.Small elected second chamber for non domestic UK issues such as defence ,foreign affairs, financial security, UK transport infrastructure. 5.English parliament decides on plan for devolution of powers to local government.
Items1-3 can be agreed in principle by next GE
We'd basically have to have a Presidential UK PM/Executive then, with First Ministers for each of the 4 home parliaments. Granted, we have 3 FMs already, but a UK PM/Executive in London and a "rival" English First Minister (and Government) also in London is dotty in extreme.
The solution SouthamObserver and I have referred to is far simpler and preserves what we've got at the moment - a UK Government which governs England plus non-devolved matters, but ensuring that England only matters aren't pushed through with votes from Scotland etc.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
As I've said passim, I'm not so sure the offers last week were quite so last-minute or panicked as we believed at the time.
In the meantime, the SNP's utter inability to plan for the currency eventuality doomed them.
(I felt they'd have a hard time of it back in 2012 when they launched their million-signature petition. Except, as I pointed out at the time, it was not signatures. It was electronic. They should have had a physical document that was toured around village halls and schools, accompanied with talks about independence. After independence, it would become one of Scotland's most important document which people would search through for their signature. Instead we had a naff online document. The lack of ambition was incredible, and a sign that the SNPs heart was not really in it).
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
IB Times calls the indyref for Farage.Banging on about Europe will stop for a while for a bit of banging on about England.The smiler with a knife in his pocket will be the ultimate winner.The cards are falling Ukip's way.Ukip are getting the rub of the green.
And on that ominous note, I have a spot of work to do. Anon.
Of course if it hadn't been for the rise of Farage and UKIP, I suspect the No camp would have romped home in Scotland by a bigger margin, probably 2 to 1. It wasn't just "Thatcher and the Tories" that had Glasgow and Dundee voting Yes in droves, it was Farage and his band of fruitcakes too.
This comment just appeared on James Kelly's website:
"The No voters are racists, Quislings, Morons, Bigots and scum.
Every single one of them, including my parents, voted so exterminate Scotland.
There can be no excuses for voting No. NONE! They are the enemy of freedom. The enemy of truth. the enemy of Life itself.
Never forgive them. They chose their fate."
If I didn't know better, I'd say that was written by me, pastiching malcolm g.
Brilliant.
In justice to JK, he does not moderate posters on his site and he has allowed some fairly offensive postings from the other side, so to speak, to remain even when they were pretty severe wind-ups.
Indeed. Anyone we know?
'Blogger Sean Thomas said... By the time you get your next referendum, in about 15-20 years, WE'LL HAVE TAKEN ALL YOUR OIL
So that's it. This was your big chance. Now it's over. You lost.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
As I've said passim, I'm not so sure the offers last week were quite so last-minute or panicked as we believed at the time.
I assumed something like it would have been offered after the vote in a mood of gracious generosity, but the rogue poll forced everyone to move faster and mention them sooner. People in England would probably have been more accepting then as well, inclined to be generous, whereas them being offered during the campaign seems more desperate and before anyone had an y good feeling to offer.
If you had an English votes for English MPs, what difference would it make? I've done this rather quickly, so *please* check for errors, but I get...
England only results 2010: Conservative majority of 61 (a change from UK result, where Conservatives were largest party in a hung result) 2005: Labour majority of 43 (no change) 2001: Labour majority of 117 (no change) 1997: Labour majority of 127 (no change) 1992: Conservative majority of 114 (no change... well, a bigger majority, so it wouldn't have been eroded by by-elections) 1987: Conservative majority of 193 (no change) 1983: Conservative majority of 201 (no change) Oct 1974: Labour largest party, 6 short (compared to Labour overall majority) Feb 1974: Conservative majority of 20 (compared to Labour largest party in hung result) 1970: Conservative majority of 73 (no change) 1966: Labour majority of 59 (no change) 1964: Conservative majority of 11 (compared to Labour overall majority of 4) 1959: Conservative majority of 119 (no change) 1955: Conservative majority of 73 (no change) 1951: Conservative largest party, 1 short (compared to Conservative overall majority of 16 UK wide, but note Labour had got more votes and I'm not certain of the figures because I've tried to include the National Liberal Party with the Conservatives and I'm unclear on numbers) 1950: Conservative majority of 36 (compared to Labour overall majority of 5) 1945: Labour majority of 152 (no change)
So, two thirds of the England-only results are the same as what happened in the UK as a whole. Several changes wouldn't actually have meant a different PM (2010, Oct 1974). Three results flip from Labour to Tory (Feb 1974, 1964, 1950), but all the "lost" Labour victories were tiny. 1951 is whacky, but I think England-only actually denies the Tories a majority (the loss of Northern Ireland compensates the loss of Wales).
Blair still wins three majorities. Labour still wins 1945 and 1966.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
Most of my council predictions were within 2-3 points I think, so pleased about that. I correctly forecast that four areas would vote No. I was 1.8 points out on the overall score.
Yes, many thanks indeed for your work on preparing that forecast. It was extremely useful as a guide to the results as they came in. I was able to go to bed not too late!
tessyC, "I imagine the result could be terminal for Plaid in getting votes above their Welsh language base in the West"
Why ? Surely, the surprise of the night was that the SNP took on and defeated Scottish Labour in their Glasgow heartlands. (Many cheers for TheUnionDivvie by the way).
There is plenty of scope for a party to do just the same in the South Wales Valleys.
Here, MPs are parachuted in from South Africa (Hain) or Copenhagen (Kinnock, Jnr) or Cheltenham (Bryant).
Just like in Glasgow, generations of Labour MPs (like the Kinnocks) have grown fat and rich while their constituents have just grown poorer and poorer.
Of course, I agree that Plaid Cymru have not shown any initiative so far in doing this.
If you had an English votes for English MPs, what difference would it make? I've done this rather quickly, so *please* check for errors, but I get...
England only results 2010: Conservative majority of 61 (a change from UK result, where Conservatives were largest party in a hung result) 2005: Labour majority of 43 (no change) 2001: Labour majority of 117 (no change) 1997: Labour majority of 127 (no change) 1992: Conservative majority of 114 (no change... well, a bigger majority, so it wouldn't have been eroded by by-elections) 1987: Conservative majority of 193 (no change) 1983: Conservative majority of 201 (no change) Oct 1974: Labour largest party, 6 short (compared to Labour overall majority) Feb 1974: Conservative majority of 20 (compared to Labour largest party in hung result) 1970: Conservative majority of 73 (no change) 1966: Labour majority of 59 (no change) 1964: Conservative majority of 11 (compared to Labour overall majority of 4) 1959: Conservative majority of 119 (no change) 1955: Conservative majority of 73 (no change) 1951: Conservative largest party, 1 short (compared to Conservative overall majority of 16 UK wide, but note Labour had got more votes and I'm not certain of the figures because I've tried to include the National Liberal Party with the Conservatives and I'm unclear on numbers) 1950: Conservative majority of 36 (compared to Labour overall majority of 5) 1945: Labour majority of 152 (no change)
So, two thirds of the England-only results are the same as what happened in the UK as a whole. Several changes wouldn't actually have meant a different PM (2010, Oct 1974). Three results flip from Labour to Tory (Feb 1974, 1964, 1950), but all the "lost" Labour victories were tiny. 1951 is whacky, but I think England-only actually denies the Tories a majority (the loss of Northern Ireland compensates the loss of Wales).
Blair still wins three majorities. Labour still wins 1945 and 1966.
The comparisons are all frankly rather irrelevant since the Conservatives used to have alot more Scottish MPs. If Scotland was taken out the equation, the odds for various majorities and most seats betting would look very very different.
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon tweets: Scotland has changed forever as a result of #indyref. There is no going back to business as usual. The demand for change must be heeded.
It's correct, but my gods the tone of this and other comments - without a moment of hesitation they have seamlessly switched gears to position themselves as being the only ones making sure change happens. There may be a lot of despondency out there, but the SNP are already up and running for the new plans. Impressive, if a little disconcerting.
Because, unlike Messrs Cameron et al, they had plans prepared for all eventualities?
As I've said passim, I'm not so sure the offers last week were quite so last-minute or panicked as we believed at the time.
In the meantime, the SNP's utter inability to plan for the currency eventuality doomed them.
(I felt they'd have a hard time of it back in 2012 when they launched their million-signature petition. Except, as I pointed out at the time, it was not signatures. It was electronic. They should have had a physical document that was toured around village halls and schools, accompanied with talks about independence. After independence, it would become one of Scotland's most important document which people would search through for their signature. Instead we had a naff online document. The lack of ambition was incredible, and a sign that the SNPs heart was not really in it).
Online petitions aren't supposed to persuade people of the importance of your cause or create historical documents, they're supposed to build you a mailing list.
The main political betting lesson to take out of the indyref was a familiar one; anecdotal “on the ground” evidence is a very poor substitute for a dispassionate examination of the polls and the political science. Unsurprisingly, posters in windows turned out to be a poor predictor of the final result.
Also think Scottish and Welsh MPs should replace the constituency members of their Assembly/Parliament. Why should they get paid the same as English MPs if they are doing a fraction of the work. Also in that case we would not have 2 tier MPs, they would all have a say on their domestic issues and they meet as a whole for UK matters.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
What an utter little ****
Does that mean he agrees with EVFEL then?
Bollocks to Miliband. Put it to a vote of the English voters.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
What an utter little ****
The man is an absolute weasel.
If Scotland voted Tory and not Labour he'd have been campaigning for them leave. The man does everything for narrow party political advantage.
Why ? Surely, the surprise of the night was that the SNP took on and defeated Scottish Labour in their Glasgow heartlands. (Many cheers for TheUnionDivvie by the way).
There is plenty of scope for a party to do just the same in the South Wales Valleys.
Here, MPs are parachuted in from South Africa (Hain) or Copenhagen (Kinnock, Jnr) or Cheltenham (Bryant).
Just like in Glasgow, generations of Labour MPs (like the Kinnocks) have grown fat and rich while their constituents have just grown poorer and poorer.
Of course, I agree that Plaid Cymru have not shown any initiative so far in doing this.
But, it is what they can and should be doing.
They offer nothing different. Their Assembly members are indistinguishable from Labour AMs. They merely act as a left wing nationalist pressure group. Their only distinguishing feature was independence, thats dead. In terms of fighting Labour in the poor areas of Wales, as we saw from the European elections UKIP is far better in tune with the socially conservative working poor in Wales. Plaid have a bleak future.
One of the positive effects of Ukip's presence has been a bit more attention to the need for a separate perspective for the coast.Looking at Jaywick for example,any economic regeneration passed them by.Labour's answer to Great Yarmouth was a money laundering operation called a Super Casino,never built. Could there be a need for a full UK coastal authority to tackle the common problem of climate change,erosion,flooding alongside the economic development and biodiversity roles?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
What an utter little ****
The man is an absolute weasel.
If Scotland voted Tory and not Labour he'd have been campaigning for them leave. The man does everything for narrow party political advantage.
Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh·1 min To be fair to Labour, they have only had 17 years to prepare an answer to the English question.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1 min Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
What an utter little ****
Unless it's to the narrow political advantage of his party. He should be careful about walking straight into the Tory trap.
SNP MSP for Edinburgh East Kenny MacAskill tweets: 1.6 million people when told No they can't by the establishment and their business and international friends said Yes we can. Proud of them.
Ugh. By all means be proud of them, but they weren't told 'No you can't', they were told 'No you shouldn't'. The very fact a vote was not hindered in anyway when it could have been (if inadvisably) shows the establishment was saying 'Yes you can. if you want to'
The man does everything for narrow party political advantage.
It's almost like he's a politician.
Where do you get such insight from Neil ?
I always thought Miliband was a nice Jewish atheist schoolboy preparing for his computer exam.
Silly you. No, he's unique amongst politicians in not always being 100% straight and sometimes looking at things in a partisan way. I wish he could be more like right wing politicians.
This EVFEL trap has Osborne's fingerprints all over it. If Miliband walks straight into it, expect Crosby to exploit it to the full and see the Tories rise in the polls.
The man does everything for narrow party political advantage.
It's almost like he's a politician.
Where do you get such insight from Neil ?
I always thought Miliband was a nice Jewish atheist schoolboy preparing for his computer exam.
Silly you. No, he's unique amongst politicians in not always being 100% straight and sometimes looking at things in a partisan way. I wish he could be more like right wing politicians.
Or nationalists, too. They may be professional politicians, but they aren't professional Westminster politicians.
Comments
My reading is that the combination of SLAB/ELAB infighting and Miliband spinelessness will damage their ability to attack; Cameron taking the initiative on EVFEL will pull back some UKIP switchers, and; Osborne's employment boom will harness the 'don't let that lot put it all at risk again' vote that we saw in the IndyRef.
I could, of course, be wrong, but it tallies with the premonition I've had for some time that the Conservatives will win precisely the same number of seats as last time.
What odds could I get on 306 Conservative and Unionist (sic) Party MPs (not including the Speaker) at GE2015?
I dare say I'll sleep tonight!!
The other thing I'd say from a pro-political-reform standpoint is that it's sadly very hard to get the voters excited about the constitution, no matter how important we might think it is.
I don't think he will resign willingly, but the gossip is that there has been coup in the planning for about the past week as the internal polling results came into the YES hq.
Having just watched Sturgeon leave the count at Ingliston, she was not a happy bunny. From friends in the SNP, when Nicola is unhappy then someone will pay, painfully.
I need to actually calculate my p&l/outstanding bet positions tonight. Not done so for a while...
....friend of mine, an everyman type who rarely expresses any political interest or views apart from distaste for Bullingdon types, UKIP and the monarchy, and lives in a northern seat not a million miles from Rochdale, texted me thusly this morning
"English votes for English laws? F*cking right. John redwood 100% right. Jock MPs can f*ck right off."
Call Me Dave seems to have struck a chord there.
If you want to berate/insult/take the piss out of/mock/ignore me, that is absolutely fine. I will happily take it. I am a crap tipster, but I am pretty good at other stuff and I reckon some of my views are worth considering. If you don't agree, I'll get over it.
Given you've just had 80+% voting on a matter of the 'constitution', that's clearly not true.. It's how you present it, and how radical you are.
Some disappointment here at the Indy\Ref result as there was some expectation that if YES had won, then Scotland would be pioneering the Independence route - esp wrt the EU.
Some have a view that Salmond lost the vote as he made claims that he could not deliver.
Regarding today's published YouGov on the GE (33/35/8/14/5), LD's 2010 split shows the lowest loss to Labour this year of 24% (usually in the 30s).
YouGov asked also:
"The next election is not expected to be until May
2015. Will you definitely vote this way, or might you
change your mind?"
Only 46% were definite that they would not change their mind 50% of Cons; 60% of LAB; 30% of LDs and 40% of UKIP).
Another 29% said "I will probably vote this way, it is very unlikely that I will change my mind."
We need change, change is good, change is pure, it's the real thing. I love it.
Change = new avatar is retained.
Also, I think it's too technical for many people to follow. Most people really have no - really, NONE - understanding of how Parliament works at all.
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/intoxicated_man_tarred_and_feathered_outside_romford_tesco_1_3774660
Socialist smoke and mirrors.
Their supporters just want to change the system to suit themselves yet again.
FIVE STEPS TO A NEW UK CONSTITUTION.
1.Devo Max powers(hereafter called domestic powers) agreed for Scotland.
2.Same (domestic ) powers devolved to English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments.
3 Agreement that MP’s can only vote in their own Parliaments.
4.Small elected second chamber for non domestic UK issues such as defence ,foreign affairs, financial security, UK transport infrastructure.
5.English parliament decides on plan for devolution of powers to local government.
Items1-3 can be agreed in principle by next GE
SeanT seems to have spend the entire morning goading Scottish independence supporters on other blogs, gloating over his prescience on this blog, lambasting everyone who disagrees with from JackW to Simon Jenkins, awarding the SeanT Prize for Politeness to Carnyx, and now banishing Southam for poor predictive powers.
Surely, the most ludicrous creature over the last 6 months has been SeanT.
Wildly vacillating between haranguing Scottish posters when No were in the lead, and sobbing and blubbering when Yes were in the lead, it has been a horrible spectacle.
"Please don't go, please don't go. Think of my daughter, she'll be stateless. You can have my car. You can have my Primrose Hill flat. Money, do you want my money, I've converted it all into dollars because I'm scared shitless, but I'll get you some. I'll get you some. But please, please don't break the Union.
Are all those going to vote SLAB again? Some will go to SNP or Greens, and others will abstain. Others will I think join any revival or new leftist party going, perhaps from the socialist bits of the Radical Independence Consortium, or Labour for Indy. If such a new Keir Hardieist operation can be formed, then that will split the SLAB vote, with bad effects in 2015. And all that is on top of the public alliance with the Tories which Labour and the LDs have made. Mr Darling said how much he approved of Tory policies, rememeber.
I can see that the Tories might regain the odd MP seat. But people vote SNP for two reasons - to run Scotland (lots don't want Labour to do that), and to get indy, and the SNP have shown that their policy is to decouple the two, and on the latter, let the people decide. They put their money where their mouth is in the teeth of all the other parties and media. In contrast to some people I can think of, and rather closer than Madrid. Brexit, anyone?
I was going to say that a Tory/UKIP win in 2015 would also have its effects on the Scottish election next year, but I begin to wonder given that Mr Miliband is even less popular here (admittedly on some polls) than Mr Cameron.
And which party would you elect to ensure the fulfilment of the Vow that made us vote No?
That's a different matter from who leads the party, but we need to see how the dust settles. It has been a very powerful image - literally - to see Mr Cameron locked away with the financiers near the Commonwealth Pool, when Mr Salmond was outside chatting to the public and having them take selfies with him.
Overall result was 1.8 points from my forecast.
I correctly predicted that 4 areas would vote Yes.
My you changed your tune. Earlier I was a "winner" and now a "loser". Chortle .....
I'm happy that a month out the ARSE projection picked the trend to YES but clearly not enough. Nevertheless well done on your final prediction yesterday.
More importantly I'd like to apologize to you for the totally graceless comment I made yesterday. It was a very cheap shot and far below the standard I like to maintain.
.....................................................
On a brighter note, I've been passed fit to travel so it's off to the sun for a month or so from next week.
As such, we both reckoned he could do pretty well for himself post Political retirement. I mused 2016 is the absolute longest he'd stick around for.
Write a book and live further well off how he gave 'Westminster a good boot in the stones'.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scotland-independence-results-will-camerons-devolution-pitch-become-lucky-strike-farage-1466259?utm_medium=social
People often miss that the SNP often do better than expected as people want to give Labour a good kick.
I don't get what's so difficult about this, or why Labour MPs should get their knickers in a twist about "no more Scottish seat PM or Cabinet minister". Yes, if they have a UK majority but no majority in England, they'll have to moderate their "England only" policies and compromise and negotiate with Tories/LDs in England.
So be it, that's democracy. Welcome to the New UK. Their solution is to construct policies that will enable them to win more seats in England. Simple.
The currency was the main one simple fact the YES campaign floundered upon.
ASDA, Morrisons, RBS all fired out the warning signals too - Wonder if there have been any more monumental outliers in the history of polling ?
The solution SouthamObserver and I have referred to is far simpler and preserves what we've got at the moment - a UK Government which governs England plus non-devolved matters, but ensuring that England only matters aren't pushed through with votes from Scotland etc.
In the meantime, the SNP's utter inability to plan for the currency eventuality doomed them.
(I felt they'd have a hard time of it back in 2012 when they launched their million-signature petition. Except, as I pointed out at the time, it was not signatures. It was electronic. They should have had a physical document that was toured around village halls and schools, accompanied with talks about independence. After independence, it would become one of Scotland's most important document which people would search through for their signature. Instead we had a naff online document. The lack of ambition was incredible, and a sign that the SNPs heart was not really in it).
Here's a short review of how things went for Ladbrokes.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/the-indyref-betting-review/
Miliband clearly wary of Cam EnglishMPs plan: he will not "allow this moment to be used for narrow party political advantage"
What an utter little ****
'Blogger Sean Thomas said...
By the time you get your next referendum, in about 15-20 years, WE'LL HAVE TAKEN ALL YOUR OIL
So that's it. This was your big chance. Now it's over. You lost.
Chortle.
September 19, 2014 at 11:48 AM'
Mick Pork gets the odd drubbing too.
England only results
2010: Conservative majority of 61 (a change from UK result, where Conservatives were largest party in a hung result)
2005: Labour majority of 43 (no change)
2001: Labour majority of 117 (no change)
1997: Labour majority of 127 (no change)
1992: Conservative majority of 114 (no change... well, a bigger majority, so it wouldn't have been eroded by by-elections)
1987: Conservative majority of 193 (no change)
1983: Conservative majority of 201 (no change)
Oct 1974: Labour largest party, 6 short (compared to Labour overall majority)
Feb 1974: Conservative majority of 20 (compared to Labour largest party in hung result)
1970: Conservative majority of 73 (no change)
1966: Labour majority of 59 (no change)
1964: Conservative majority of 11 (compared to Labour overall majority of 4)
1959: Conservative majority of 119 (no change)
1955: Conservative majority of 73 (no change)
1951: Conservative largest party, 1 short (compared to Conservative overall majority of 16 UK wide, but note Labour had got more votes and I'm not certain of the figures because I've tried to include the National Liberal Party with the Conservatives and I'm unclear on numbers)
1950: Conservative majority of 36 (compared to Labour overall majority of 5)
1945: Labour majority of 152 (no change)
Data at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf
So, two thirds of the England-only results are the same as what happened in the UK as a whole. Several changes wouldn't actually have meant a different PM (2010, Oct 1974). Three results flip from Labour to Tory (Feb 1974, 1964, 1950), but all the "lost" Labour victories were tiny. 1951 is whacky, but I think England-only actually denies the Tories a majority (the loss of Northern Ireland compensates the loss of Wales).
Blair still wins three majorities. Labour still wins 1945 and 1966.
Arf - those great value losers
Why ? Surely, the surprise of the night was that the SNP took on and defeated Scottish Labour in their Glasgow heartlands. (Many cheers for TheUnionDivvie by the way).
There is plenty of scope for a party to do just the same in the South Wales Valleys.
Here, MPs are parachuted in from South Africa (Hain) or Copenhagen (Kinnock, Jnr) or Cheltenham (Bryant).
Just like in Glasgow, generations of Labour MPs (like the Kinnocks) have grown fat and rich while their constituents have just grown poorer and poorer.
Of course, I agree that Plaid Cymru have not shown any initiative so far in doing this.
But, it is what they can and should be doing.
The main political betting lesson to take out of the indyref was a familiar one; anecdotal “on the ground” evidence is a very poor substitute for a dispassionate examination of the polls and the political science. Unsurprisingly, posters in windows turned out to be a poor predictor of the final result.
If Scotland voted Tory and not Labour he'd have been campaigning for them leave. The man does everything for narrow party political advantage.
I want to see if I managed to come just outside the top 4 .
I always thought Miliband was a nice Jewish atheist schoolboy preparing for his computer exam.
Could there be a need for a full UK coastal authority to tackle the common problem of climate change,erosion,flooding alongside the economic development and biodiversity roles?
To be fair to Labour, they have only had 17 years to prepare an answer to the English question.
Ugh. By all means be proud of them, but they weren't told 'No you can't', they were told 'No you shouldn't'. The very fact a vote was not hindered in anyway when it could have been (if inadvisably) shows the establishment was saying 'Yes you can. if you want to'
Salmond's press conference was due at 10am. Then we heard 2pm, now 4pm. Wonder what he's working on
Perhaps he's going on Strictly?
It's with TSE at the moment.
I can tell you that you were in the top 100.
(The 'X' being the Saltire)