It's this kind of polling that makes the recent national polling for Labour look completely incoherent.
* Scotland only polls consistently show SNP heading for a landslide, as do the subsamples of many UK polls;
* Wales only polls show Labour no better placed than 2010;
* Ashcroft marginals show the Con-Lab swing down to 3%, with the majority of seats recently polled showing a decline in Labour's 2010 vote;
* Repeat constituency polls in Grimsby, Dudley, Brighton, Stockton have all shown 10 point lead reductions (or seat losses) for Labour in just over six months
* By election and PCC results have seen Labour struggle to hold their vote in Yorkshire and Lancashire, whilst wiped out of the contests in Newark, Rochester, Clacton.
It's only culturally diverse London that seems to buck the trend.
How they are meant to be 5-7 points up nationally is a mystery.
It's only a few very recent polls that have shown Labour 5-7 points up nationally, and there have been some data points in the other direction, too. Overall the lead's looking more like 2 or 3, and when Ashcroft was doing his last bit of constituency polling it was closer to 0 or 1.
I don't think this will happen, but if the national polls settle back to leads of 5 to 7 I'm sure we'll see something similar in other constituency polls, at least in England. England is very big, so you don't need a humungous swing to cancel out serious losses in Scotland.
Indeed. Ashcroft's marginal polling has shown us the variation which can exist within individual seats, but it has also shown use that of any dozen or more seats you pick the average swing tends to be the same as the national swing.
Mr. Jonathan, I concur that a more informal arrangement is likely. That still has the potential for flashpoints, though, and I'm sure the SNP will do all they can to foster division.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
How come. Your argument seems a bit asymmetrical.
A party that clearly lost the election South of the Border, taking office with the backing of a party that's committed to the break-up of the UK, and which demands various forms of special treatment for Scotland, would convince voters in England and Wales that the Union with Scotland was not worth preserving.
If no other majority exists in the HoC, I don't see what choice there will be. No worse than a minority Tory administration propped up by irish nationalists or UKIP and with virtually no representation outside England.
Do you mean "Unionists"? Tories backed up by Unionists or UKIP is no problem, as neither group is seeking to break up the UK.
A minority Tory/UKIP/DUP govt would be more damaging to the the UK than any other possible govt. An SNP dream.
If the SNP get anywhere close to the number of WM Scottish seats suggested by current polling, or even just a bare majority of them, isn't Murphy finished, particularly after his 'we will not lose a single seat to the SNP' pronouncement? If he decides to fight his East Ren seat, there's even an outside chance of him losing that; a pol without a mandate trying to project leadership solely through tv studios and the Daily Record* would be a pitiful sight.
Mr. Tokyo, hard to imagine either blues or reds accepting a Grand Coalition.
I think it would only happen if it was clear that an immediate election would lead to losses for both parties, or if there was a major international crisis
Right, but UKIP could deliver the first one of those, couldn't they? A few weeks of the Labservatives wheeling and dealing and dangling bits of pork to various separatists wouldn't do UKIP any harm, and two elections on the trot like that could save them a decade spent pushing dodgy bar-charts.
Mm, interesting. Isn't that an increase in the SNP lead since Mr Murphy took over? Error margins and all that so we will have to wait and see. However the DR article has details of a further question from which it appears that voters are on balance less likely to vote Labour as a result of Mr Murphy though it's probably not significantly different from 'no net difference' from the numbers given. Certainly does not seem to have made any immediate edifference.
'Polling expert John Curtice commented: “Murphy is not the magic bullet. It is going to require more than a new kid on the block – he has to persuade people that May is not a re-run of the referendum.”'
Which is interesting given the current Unionist parties' apparent strategy of rerunning indyref for the UKGE.
It looks as if tax from the north sea is going to have to be halved at the next budget. Not exactly what Osborne would have been wanting to spend his few sweeties on immediately before the election but the scale of cancelled investment in the north sea is such that it has macro implications for the whole country.
In round terms the tax will fall from about £5bn to maybe £2.5bn. To put it into perspective that is roughly £500 a head for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Or to put it another way this alone would have been enough to bring average public spending in Scotland from comfortably above England to something below it.
In most other political matters a party that was so rapidly demonstrated to have been so stunningly incompetent and dishonest would have something of a problem. But not here, apparently. It was always obvious that those voting yes were not much interested in the subject of economics. That apparent indifference is reaching new levels. Sad and dangerous.
I thought Scotland spending per capita was over £1000 a head higher than the UK.
Despite all the recent Scottish polls, I have to say that this huge SNP surge has completely passed me by on the ground. Yes, the Indy Ref result really angered Yes/SNP voters, and as a result it really fired them all up to join the SNP in the aftermath of the Referendum in much the same way the 1997 GE result finally pushed me to officially join the Conservative party. But I have yet to meet anyone who has now switched to voting SNP who wasn't already going to do so before the Referendum. Go figure.
That would be consistent with the polls if the SNP upswing was primarily taking place in the central belt and particularly Glasgow.
If the SNP get anywhere close to the number of WM Scottish seats suggested by current polling, or even just a bare majority of them, isn't Murphy finished, particularly after his 'we will not lose a single seat to the SNP' pronouncement? If he decides to fight his East Ren seat, there's even an outside chance of him losing that; a pol without a mandate trying to project leadership solely through tv studios and the Daily Record* would be a pitiful sight.
*Though not unique for SLab
Hmm, there's been talk from the Murphyite airt of him taking a year off to wander Scotland between the 2015 and 2016 elections, so perhaps he won't bother to stand in East Renfrewshire in May 2015. And we'd still get that rather strange sight anyway, though without the loss. It's interesting that there has been spin of him getting an office in the Scottish Parliament already, very quickly - I gather - downgraded to access to a shared desk and a pass.
He still has to win a MSP seat in 2016 (if no by election offers itself), but if what you say is true that problem could end up being superseded by other concerns.
Love the PB tories fallacy that England = people that agree with them, when thankfully polling and real life experience proves that their regressive, ignorant ideas are merely a vocal minority.
Love the PB tories fallacy that England = people that agree with them, when thankfully polling and real life experience proves that their regressive, ignorant ideas are merely a vocal minority.
Post polling evidence which supports your hypothesis.....we've already had one misconception demolished this morning.....
Despite all the recent Scottish polls, I have to say that this huge SNP surge has completely passed me by on the ground. Yes, the Indy Ref result really angered Yes/SNP voters, and as a result it really fired them all up to join the SNP in the aftermath of the Referendum in much the same way the 1997 GE result finally pushed me to officially join the Conservative party. But I have yet to meet anyone who has now switched to voting SNP who wasn't already going to do so before the Referendum. Go figure.
That would be consistent with the polls if the SNP upswing was primarily taking place in the central belt and particularly Glasgow.
That really is a surprise given folk wisdom on PB - am I misreading it, or is the SNP indeed doing particularly well in the Borders and the Tory country of the north-east and Highlands?
Love the PB tories fallacy that England = people that agree with them, when thankfully polling and real life experience proves that their regressive, ignorant ideas are merely a vocal minority.
Current polling suggests England has a centre-right majority, albeit not a Tory majority.
Love the PB tories fallacy that England = people that agree with them, when thankfully polling and real life experience proves that their regressive, ignorant ideas are merely a vocal minority.
And your statement is logically cogent and correct? Have you met the 2014 Meiji: Correlation, Causation and Conflation...?
It's this kind of polling that makes the recent national polling for Labour look completely incoherent.
* Scotland only polls consistently show SNP heading for a landslide, as do the subsamples of many UK polls;
* Wales only polls show Labour no better placed than 2010;
* Ashcroft marginals show the Con-Lab swing down to 3%, with the majority of seats recently polled showing a decline in Labour's 2010 vote;
* Repeat constituency polls in Grimsby, Dudley, Brighton, Stockton have all shown 10 point lead reductions (or seat losses) for Labour in just over six months
* By election and PCC results have seen Labour struggle to hold their vote in Yorkshire and Lancashire, whilst wiped out of the contests in Newark, Rochester, Clacton.
It's only culturally diverse London that seems to buck the trend.
How they are meant to be 5-7 points up nationally is a mystery.
It's only a few very recent polls that have shown Labour 5-7 points up nationally, and there have been some data points in the other direction, too. Overall the lead's looking more like 2 or 3, and when Ashcroft was doing his last bit of constituency polling it was closer to 0 or 1.
I don't think this will happen, but if the national polls settle back to leads of 5 to 7 I'm sure we'll see something similar in other constituency polls, at least in England. England is very big, so you don't need a humungous swing to cancel out serious losses in Scotland.
Indeed. Ashcroft's marginal polling has shown us the variation which can exist within individual seats, but it has also shown use that of any dozen or more seats you pick the average swing tends to be the same as the national swing.
Internet polling fluctuates more, but recent telephone polling has been very consistent for Con (28-32%) and Lab (29-33%). The UKIP and Lib Dem numbers are more variable, but the Lib Dems mostly get into double figures.
Despite all the recent Scottish polls, I have to say that this huge SNP surge has completely passed me by on the ground. Yes, the Indy Ref result really angered Yes/SNP voters, and as a result it really fired them all up to join the SNP in the aftermath of the Referendum in much the same way the 1997 GE result finally pushed me to officially join the Conservative party. But I have yet to meet anyone who has now switched to voting SNP who wasn't already going to do so before the Referendum. Go figure.
That would be consistent with the polls if the SNP upswing was primarily taking place in the central belt and particularly Glasgow.
That really is a surprise given folk wisdom on PB - am I misreading it, or is the SNP indeed doing particularly well in the Borders and the Tory country of the north-east and Highlands?
The North East has long been an SNP stronghold - and before them Conservative/Unionist - Labour never had much traction outside Dundee.
Of course, these are Subsamples of Scotland no less - typical size ±100
Despite all the recent Scottish polls, I have to say that this huge SNP surge has completely passed me by on the ground. Yes, the Indy Ref result really angered Yes/SNP voters, and as a result it really fired them all up to join the SNP in the aftermath of the Referendum in much the same way the 1997 GE result finally pushed me to officially join the Conservative party. But I have yet to meet anyone who has now switched to voting SNP who wasn't already going to do so before the Referendum. Go figure.
That would be consistent with the polls if the SNP upswing was primarily taking place in the central belt and particularly Glasgow.
The general consensus seems to be that SLAB’s support level is down to 25% and that things surely can’t get much worse. Being a life-long labour supporter now supporting the SNP and living in Central Scotland, my sense is that things are about to get much worse for SLAB before they get better. I think the core 25% is going to be further reduced by the following factors:
- SNP continuing to monopolise the centre left. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract a proportion of the female vote, which had been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make further inroads, as in the rest of the UK. –The SSP will also take some support away. - A bit of the LibDem resurgence once they are free from the shackles of the coalition. – SLAB will struggle to get their vote out.
Taking account all the above, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point. The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and mainstream media have become.
In terms of tactical voting, I could envisage Conservatives voting SNP to add to SLAB’s woes and Greens voting SNP. I don’t envisage there being a credible “Unionist” alliance to try and combat the SNP, as the mainstream parties are all going to be at each other’s throats nationally.
Despite all the recent Scottish polls, I have to say that this huge SNP surge has completely passed me by on the ground. Yes, the Indy Ref result really angered Yes/SNP voters, and as a result it really fired them all up to join the SNP in the aftermath of the Referendum in much the same way the 1997 GE result finally pushed me to officially join the Conservative party. But I have yet to meet anyone who has now switched to voting SNP who wasn't already going to do so before the Referendum. Go figure.
That would be consistent with the polls if the SNP upswing was primarily taking place in the central belt and particularly Glasgow.
That really is a surprise given folk wisdom on PB - am I misreading it, or is the SNP indeed doing particularly well in the Borders and the Tory country of the north-east and Highlands?
The North East has long been an SNP stronghold - and before them Conservative/Unionist - Labour never had much traction outside Dundee.
Of course, these are Subsamples of Scotland no less - typical size ±100
Thanks. Quite so on both points. Yet we were and are seeing people here claim new disaster for the SNP in the Northeast based on indyref. Incidentally, the Labour pattern is the opposite, so I wonder how the actual seats will stack up (though it does tend to suggest that the overall pattern is a true one).
The implication is that people are differentiating between referendum voting and voting on UK governance - and/or have voted No when they want devomax - and on both counts the Unionist parties' strategy of obsessing about the risk of another referendum is therefore likely to fail them. All the talk of it is coming mostly from Unionist quarters, and obiter dicta from Mr Salmond who is often taken out of context - and is not the party leader either
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
Love the PB tories fallacy that England = people that agree with them, when thankfully polling and real life experience proves that their regressive, ignorant ideas are merely a vocal minority.
And your statement is logically cogent and correct? Have you met the 2014 Meiji: Correlation, Causation and Conflation...?
Meiji - I think you mean Magi?
Your post makes no sense even after editing, but I think we'll leave it at that.
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
We've already got a Yorkshire Party and a North East Party (and of course a Cornwall Party). Under PR these regional parties would gain some traction, imho. With FPTP, no chance.
The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and mainstream media have become.
Not quite sure, I fully get this argument. Clearly some on the left don't agree with Jim Murphy, but surely Labour is better off with an effective politician at the helm. Smith, Blair and Brown seemed to do alright in Scotland. None were left wing.
Yup. currently the Nats are buoyant despite having lost Indyref and an economic storm brewing on their doorstep. They need to keep the story on constitutional issues however whether real life will let them do so remains to be seen. At some point the bread and butter issues will return with a vengeance.
CBI survey says that Scottish employers are the most optimistic in the UK about additional hiring in 2015. In fact they're more concerned about shortages of skilled labour.
well let's see how that pans out. With oil hitting the skids and clouds looming over Europe I suspect optimism might not turn in to as many jobs as people think. At some point the electorate are going to get fed up with more low paid jobs and want to see higher wages which demands productivity soemthing we haven't been that good at creating.
Perhaps the uncertainty over the referendum is unwinding.....oh, wait......
I think the problem for Scotland now is the Indyref hasn't gone away, so for foreign investors it now has an extra level of uncertainty as a place to invest.
This is bad news for Nats as investment will in all likelihood be lower than if the Indyref had settled the matter so Scots will have fewer jobs.
It's also bad news for Unionists as a sub optimum Scotland will only feed the Nat narrative of we'd do a better job alone.
A vicious circle.
Yes, new investment is dead until Scotland has independence or the prospect of a SNP government vanishes. Neither will occur in the short term. So Scotland suffers in the meantime.
What planet do you live on, inward investment in recent years has risen significantly. You need to get out of the house more.
Figures please ? So investors are investing not knowing what the currency will be in 5 years ?
Mr. Rentool, must admit that after writing that I was wondering if I'd confused it for a bus company.
Daft sods. But a good indication of how things'll go if the short-sighted inflict the kind of cack-handed devolution some seem so keen on. I do wonder if Clegg's cretinous and unnecessary conferring of minority status on Cornwall was an effort to spike the guns of an English Parliament.
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the rise of a London party - simply because London increasingly marches to a different beat to the rest of the country. And there's that funny bunch in Cornwall that SeanT supports.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the rise of a London party - simply because London increasingly marches to a different beat to the rest of the country. And there's that funny bunch in Cornwall that SeanT supports.
Ha!
London is looked after by the existing trio I think! The reason other parties are doing well/have emerged in the first place is because of that.. where do the "others" do worst?
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the rise of a London party - simply because London increasingly marches to a different beat to the rest of the country. And there's that funny bunch in Cornwall that SeanT supports.
Sounds unlikely. London is too diverse, arguably more diverse than the UK. Can you conceive of a single political movement to represent and promote the interests of Tower Hamlets, Richmond, Lewisham, Kensington and Southall?
The prospect of Scottish MPs voting on increasing taxes in England to pay for spending in Scotland (probably 'across the UK' in both cases, but thats not how it would be presented) should be giving those contemplating deals with the SNP pause for thought.....
If Labour loses in Scotland, but has most seats in the Commons it will have won in England. Labour will not need a deal with the SNP.
So a Labour minority government will not need support outside its own party?
I wonder if Labour are saving to fight two GEs like the Tories?
If Labour wins England with a comfortable majority in seats, it governs for 5 years. The SNP has said it will not get into an alliance with the Tories. We will see.
The interesting permutation comes when Labour are behind the Conservatives in seats but ahead if you add in the SNP. What would the Lib Dems do then? Might the triple lock for approving any coalition paralyse them?
The Liberal Democrats will end up with just 2 seats if these numbers remain no matter what people think of Danny Alexander's position. Portillo also lost on a 17% swing. These things happen. The Yellows will win Orkney and Charlie Kennedy will win. That's it. The Tories might win a second seat on the churn.
So, if the two "English" parties work together, then bye bye Scotland. Even the SNP will not need to do anything.
Judging by this poll Labour is in danger of becoming an "English" party.
No. The England & Wales Party. The only one. Today they are the only Great British party. OK , the Lib Dems too !
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
lol - A Labour govt propped up in any way by the SNP is more likely to destroy the Union - England will simply not tolerate ever greater subsidies to the fringes which they have to pay for in order to sustain something which is increasingly meaningless.
By “England” do you mean the Daily Heil?
No.
'England':
the survey also shows that English people would be in favour of the UK Government taking a much tougher stance on Scotland if it decides to say in the Union.
ge following a No vote, while the vast majority (63 per cent) believe that Scottish MPs should be prevented from voting on English laws in the future.
The prospect of Scottish MPs voting on increasing taxes in England to pay for spending in Scotland (probably 'across the UK' in both cases, but thats not how it would be presented) should be giving those contemplating deals with the SNP pause for thought.....
If Labour loses in Scotland, but has most seats in the Commons it will have won in England. Labour will not need a deal with the SNP.
So a Labour minority government will not need support outside its own party?
I wonder if Labour are saving to fight two GEs like the Tories?
If Labour wins England with a comfortable majority in seats, it governs for 5 years. The SNP has said it will not get into an alliance with the Tories. We will see.
Current polling tends to give the Conservatives a marginal lead in England, but Labour would probably edge it in terms of seats.
And under our ludicrous FPTP system it's seats that count. The SNP would not ever vote down a minority Labour government and thus move out of the equation, so it's then a matter of Labour working with the LDs and other minority parties.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
A Party to unite Lancashire and Yorkshire? That's another Never! Never! Never!
The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and mainstream media have become.
Not quite sure, I fully get this argument. Clearly some on the left don't agree with Jim Murphy, but surely Labour is better off with an effective politician at the helm. Smith, Blair and Brown seemed to do alright in Scotland. None were left wing.
Being out of touch with a large number of voters who are currently out of touch with reality is probably not too bad a place to be long term.
Grand coalition’s impossible. Folk memories of 1931 too important for Labour.
And folk memories are usually wrong. A strong case exists that it was Labour's refusal to join a Grand Coalition in 1931 which led to their annihilation at the subsequent snap election.
When they did participate (admittedly in uniquely different circumstances) between 1940-45, the outcome was rather more favourable...
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the rise of a London party - simply because London increasingly marches to a different beat to the rest of the country. And there's that funny bunch in Cornwall that SeanT supports.
Sounds unlikely. London is too diverse, arguably more diverse than the UK. Can you conceive of a single political movement to represent and promote the interests of Tower Hamlets, Richmond, Lewisham, Kensington and Southall?
Yes, of course.
London is no more diverse than Scotland.
All you need to do is to focus on an external enemy, and the fact that London pays for the United Kingdom, while politicians from the shires run it.
"a fair deal for London"
Focus on regulations by out of towners who am determined to do London down.
Why shouldn't Londoners be allowed to rule themselves?
I reckon you'd be able to pick up votes from all parties, by the clever expedient (pioneered by ukip and the snp) of focusing on "we should be allowed to choose for ourselves" without being too specific about what those choices are.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
A Party to unite Lancashire and Yorkshire? That's another Never! Never! Never!
And we thought a Grand Coalition was unlikely!
Think of me as a modern day Plantagenet.
Edit: Which would make me French, which is soooo not me.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
... The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe...
If the Union can only continue to exist if the voters in the rest of the UK do not elect into a government a particular party then the Union is already if not dead then certainly coughing up blood. It is certainly not worth trying to save.
Mr. Observer, indeed, although I prefer FPTP to PR, which is the work of Satan.
No point in going over old arguments. If you are happy for Labour to win most seats in England - so becoming the government - despite being beaten on votes in England by the Tories, then that is fine by me.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
The only thing of note about the trans-Pennine route is 'Snake-Pass'. A small, tiny, narrow road that scares most of the tax-bearing Londoners.
Yep, just like you! Good luck in building your one-way street....
Mr. Observer, indeed, although I prefer FPTP to PR, which is the work of Satan.
No point in going over old arguments. If you are happy for Labour to win most seats in England - so becoming the government - despite being beaten on votes in England by the Tories, then that is fine by me.
Oh come on. PB was brilliant* when we were discussing the merits of AV over fptp.
*My definition of brilliant maybe different to other PBers
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
... The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe...
If the Union can only continue to exist if the voters in the rest of the UK do not elect into a government a particular party then the Union is already if not dead then certainly coughing up blood. It is certainly not worth trying to save.
I think it is worth trying to save, which is why I will be holding my nose and very reluctantly voting Labour next year.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
The only thing of note about the trans-Pennine route is 'Snake-Pass'. A small, tiny, narrow road that scares most of the tax-bearing Londoners.
Yep, just like you! God luck in building your one-way street....
Grand coalition’s impossible. Folk memories of 1931 too important for Labour.
And folk memories are usually wrong. A strong case exists that it was Labour's refusal to join a Grand Coalition in 1931 which led to their annihilation at the subsequent snap election.
When they did participate (admittedly in uniquely different circumstances) between 1940-45, the outcome was rather more favourable...
Worth remembering the first national government lasted about three months - Aug to Oct 1931.
Yup. currently the Nats are buoyant despite having lost Indyref and an economic storm brewing on their doorstep. They need to keep the story on constitutional issues however whether real life will let them do so remains to be seen. At some point the bread and butter issues will return with a vengeance.
CBI survey says that Scottish employers are the most optimistic in the UK about additional hiring in 2015. In fact they're more concerned about shortages of skilled labour.
well let's see how that pans out. With oil hitting the skids and clouds looming over Europe I suspect optimism might not turn in to as many jobs as people think. At some point the electorate are going to get fed up with more low paid jobs and want to see higher wages which demands productivity soemthing we haven't been that good at creating.
Perhaps the uncertainty over the referendum is unwinding.....oh, wait......
I think the problem for Scotland now is the Indyref hasn't gone away, so for foreign investors it now has an extra level of uncertainty as a place to invest.
This is bad news for Nats as investment will in all likelihood be lower than if the Indyref had settled the matter so Scots will have fewer jobs.
It's also bad news for Unionists as a sub optimum Scotland will only feed the Nat narrative of we'd do a better job alone.
A vicious circle.
Yes, new investment is dead until Scotland has independence or the prospect of a SNP government vanishes. Neither will occur in the short term. So Scotland suffers in the meantime.
What planet do you live on, inward investment in recent years has risen significantly. You need to get out of the house more.
Figures please ? So investors are investing not knowing what the currency will be in 5 years ?
Apparently they are, the mad fools.
"Inward investment to Scotland 'highest in 16 years'"
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
If the Union can't survive having a centre-right government, then it's not worth preserving.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
If the Union can't survive having a centre-right government, then it's not worth preserving.
I disagree. The Union will survive centre-right governments in the future, but it won't now. It needs time and it needs nurturing. A Tory majority would be just too much of a gift for the SNP next year.
Yup. currently the Nats are buoyant despite having lost Indyref and an economic storm brewing on their doorstep. They need to keep the story on constitutional issues however whether real life will let them do so remains to be seen. At some point the bread and butter issues will return with a vengeance.
CBI survey says that Scottish employers are the most optimistic in the UK about additional hiring in 2015. In fact they're more concerned about shortages of skilled labour.
well let's see how that pans out. With oil hitting the skids and clouds looming over Europe I suspect optimism might not turn in to as many jobs as people think. At some point the electorate are going to get fed up with more low paid jobs and want to see higher wages which demands productivity soemthing we haven't been that good at creating.
Perhaps the uncertainty over the referendum is unwinding.....oh, wait......
I think the problem for Scotland now is the Indyref hasn't gone away, so for foreign investors it now has an extra level of uncertainty as a place to invest.
This is bad news for Nats as investment will in all likelihood be lower than if the Indyref had settled the matter so Scots will have fewer jobs.
It's also bad news for Unionists as a sub optimum Scotland will only feed the Nat narrative of we'd do a better job alone.
A vicious circle.
Yes, new investment is dead until Scotland has independence or the prospect of a SNP government vanishes. Neither will occur in the short term. So Scotland suffers in the meantime.
What planet do you live on, inward investment in recent years has risen significantly. You need to get out of the house more.
Figures please ? So investors are investing not knowing what the currency will be in 5 years ?
Apparently they are, the mad fools.
"Inward investment to Scotland 'highest in 16 years'"
Sporting has at last re-opened its GE Seats market and it's something of a surprise (to me at least) to see the Tories' price tightening slightly so that they're now just three seats behind Labour:
Sporting has at last re-opened its GE Seats market and it's something of a surprise (to me at least) to see the Tories' price tightening slightly so that they're now just three seats behind Labour:
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
The only thing of note about the trans-Pennine route is 'Snake-Pass'. A small, tiny, narrow road that scares most of the tax-bearing Londoners.
Yep, just like you! God luck in building your one-way street....
Snake Pass is a joke on the rest of the country.
Us locals go via Woodhead Pass
I enjoyed driving Snake Pass - but it was light, I wasn't in a hurry and there was no traffic to speak of.
Mr. 1000, I concur. London, Yorkshire and Cornwall would seem the most likely candidates for such parties, but we'd then get others in response to that.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
Wait until I become Manchester's first directly elected Mayor.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
The only thing of note about the trans-Pennine route is 'Snake-Pass'. A small, tiny, narrow road that scares most of the tax-bearing Londoners.
Yep, just like you! God luck in building your one-way street....
Snake Pass is a joke on the rest of the country.
Us locals go via Woodhead Pass
I enjoyed driving Snake Pass - but it was light, I wasn't in a hurry and there was no traffic to speak of.
To be honest, after all the tales I had heard I found Snake Pass a bit of a damp squib. But then I have been driving up and down the A303 for decades.
That relates to 2013, before the currency became an issue.
Yeah, that's right, Unionists only mentioned the currency 'ishoo' from 01/01/14.
Perhaps you can pin your colours to the mast and predict how much inward investment to Scotland in 2014 will have fallen in relation to its own previous figures, and to that of the rUK?
Mr. Calum, that sounds like a credible prediction.
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the rise of a London party - simply because London increasingly marches to a different beat to the rest of the country. And there's that funny bunch in Cornwall that SeanT supports.
The big problem for a London Party is that while most of London's residents are metropolitan New Labour types, a large number of the workers responsible for its wealth commute in from the Tory shires.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
I don't know the answer, but SNP winning Scotland and Labour winning most seats overall must be a big price... So the premise you talk of is just unlikely to happen
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
I don't know the answer, but SNP winning Scotland and Labour winning most seats overall must be a big price... So the premise you talk of is just unlikely to happen
That relates to 2013, before the currency became an issue.
Yeah, that's right, Unionists only mentioned the currency 'ishoo' from 01/01/14.
Perhaps you can pin your colours to the mast and predict how much inward investment to Scotland in 2014 will have fallen in relation to its own previous figures, and to that of the rUK?
The Unionists began to make the currency an issue in around February I seem to remember. Wasn't that when Osborne made his big speech? I have no idea about how far inward investment would have fallen this year, maybe it has risen, who knows? But I am pretty sure that, long-term, investors do not react well to uncertainty.
OGH and others are expecting far too much of Murphy. Some people need reminding that Scotland is still part of the UK and Labour's prospects there in the GE depend on them wanting to vote for Ed Miliband. Not much Murphy can do about that. He needs to focus on becoming first minister in 2016 and preventing another referendum.
The Nats might have lied about oil and other stuff, but I think plenty of voters up there know that already. It's a question of whether you prefer the Nats lies to the unionists' fear-mongering. Tricky choice.
I tried to post this 10 minutes ago but for some reason it blanked on me.
Some of their propaganda is in UKIP purple and yellow. If they take [m]any votes it could be that they will be mostly those already lost to Labour, and currently residing in the UKIP column.
Splitting the non-Labour vote is obviously beneficial to Labour.
Why have none of the pollsters conducting Scottish polling asked what government Scottish voters would prefer after the 2015 election? You'd think it'd be one of the most important questions. If SNP voters aren't bothered whether it's Conservative or Labour then that would be a pretty strong indicator on the possibility any future switching.
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
PS - the strong indication is that Osborne will cut taxes on new oil field developments. totalUK can withstand that. Econ0mically the case for the Union is made, lock stock and barrel. Politics in Scotland is reduced to personalities and the ravings of the extreme left wing.
The general consensus seems to be that SLAB’s support level is down to 25% and that things surely can’t get much worse. Being a life-long labour supporter now supporting the SNP and living in Central Scotland, my sense is that things are about to get much worse for SLAB before they get better. I think the core 25% is going to be further reduced by the following factors:
- SNP continuing to monopolise the centre left. – Nicola Sturgeon will attract a proportion of the female vote, which had been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond. – UKIP and the Greens will make further inroads, as in the rest of the UK. –The SSP will also take some support away. - A bit of the LibDem resurgence once they are free from the shackles of the coalition. – SLAB will struggle to get their vote out.
Taking account all the above, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point. The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and mainstream media have become.
In terms of tactical voting, I could envisage Conservatives voting SNP to add to SLAB’s woes and Greens voting SNP. I don’t envisage there being a credible “Unionist” alliance to try and combat the SNP, as the mainstream parties are all going to be at each other’s throats nationally. </blockquote
Add to that the lack of a Labour ground game in many parts.The SNP has now 10 members to Labour's 1 and those members have become energised by the indyref.
Sporting has at last re-opened its GE Seats market and it's something of a surprise (to me at least) to see the Tories' price tightening slightly so that they're now just three seats behind Labour:
That spread is almost maliciously balanced to cause the greatest possible confusion.
PS UKIP on 8-10. That seems a bit optimistic.
Jonathan - I think I know what you mean, but malice doesn't come into it - the spreads simply reflect the weight of money bought/sold for each party. Clearly their clients are choosing to ignore those two recent awful polls for the Blues.
A terrible poll for Scottish Labour, but no great surprise. Murphy has an incredibly hard task ahead of him. And one that will take years, not months.
However on these figures, if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats in 2015, it will have won in England. On that basis we will have a Labour government. The SNP will never vote with the Tories to bring it down and the chances of them abstaining on votes that could bring a Labour government down are also vanishingly small - they will never help the Tories as the damage it will do them in Scotland would be too great. For the SNP to have any leverage in the next Parliament - however many MPs they have - the Tories have to win most seats. Things will get interesting then. Could Cameron actually deliver on an EU referendum?
Thus, Labour winning most seats in 2015 safeguards the Union. A Tory minority puts it in doubt. A Tory majority ends it. As a unionist, it seems I have only one choice next year, after all. Reluctantly, I shall exercise it - though ceaseless Tory pandering to UKIP does make it easier than it would have been.
Labour winning fewer seats than the Conservatives, but taking office with SNP backing, kills the Union.
The Conservatives winning 326 seats makes the SNP irrelevant.
Which us why I said "if Labour loses in Scotland but wins most seats ..."
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
Rubbish and self serving to boot. If labour are wiped out in Scotland then why should a tory govt make any difference - they would be just as strong in Scotland. All you are trying to do is say a tory vote means the end of the Union which is garbage.
There has been a referendum, thats gone. The union is here and the SNP are in the thrall of the extreme left wing.
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
Der. Just a few points: the timing was hugely relevant. Cameron idiotically gave Salmond years, to build emotional momentum. Cameron could have insisted the electorate include Scots living in the rest of the UK. Cameron could have demanded a Devomax option, killing off Yes completely. Etc etc.
But in his blasé, foolish, arrogant Etonian way Cameron thought he was bound to win, so he gave the wilier, cannier Salmond everything. And nearly blew it. Such generosity from Westminster will not happen again.
Interestingly I think Ed Miliband would be, and would have been, much less of a walkover. Ed might be a dork, but he has a skill at basic, aggressive politicking which Cameron lacks.
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
I'd have thought PM and Chancellor would be different parties, likewise Chancellor and Home, and Home and Foreign. So for example:
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: George Osborne Home: Ed Balls Foreign: David Cameron
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
I'd have thought PM and Chancellor would be different parties, likewise Chancellor and Home, and Home and Foreign. So for example:
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: George Osborne Home: Ed Balls Foreign: David Cameron
And no mention of Defence. 2-b-4 is not the brightest....
With Meteor and Dave-35 he may have missed the last few years. Bless....
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
Der. Just a few points: the timing was hugely relevant. Cameron idiotically gave Salmond years, to build emotional momentum. Cameron could have insisted the electorate include Scots living in the rest of the UK. Cameron could have demanded a Devomax option, killing off Yes completely. Etc etc.
But in his blasé, foolish, arrogant Etonian way Cameron thought he was bound to win, so he gave the wilier, cannier Salmond everything. And nearly blew it. Such generosity from Westminster will not happen again.
Interestingly I think Ed Miliband would be, and would have been, much less of a walkover. Ed might be a dork, but he has a skill at basic, aggressive politicking which Cameron lacks.
The word is "Durh!!!" Eat my [MODERATED] &c.
A fine side-track well worthy of PB traditions, especially as it is the series 25th anniversary.
I think you'll find the word is "D'oh", though, as ever, the Septics muck up the spelling and write "Duh".
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
I'd have thought PM and Chancellor would be different parties, likewise Chancellor and Home, and Home and Foreign. So for example:
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: George Osborne Home: Ed Balls Foreign: David Cameron
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
I'd have thought PM and Chancellor would be different parties, likewise Chancellor and Home, and Home and Foreign. So for example:
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: George Osborne Home: Ed Balls Foreign: David Cameron
Balls and Osborne in the same cabinet. Brave.
They're professionals politicians, they'd be able to work together fine. I know you see them arguing with each other on the telly, but it's all part of the show.
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
Der. Just a few points: the timing was hugely relevant. Cameron idiotically gave Salmond years, to build emotional momentum. Cameron could have insisted the electorate include Scots living in the rest of the UK. Cameron could have demanded a Devomax option, killing off Yes completely. Etc etc.
But in his blasé, foolish, arrogant Etonian way Cameron thought he was bound to win, so he gave the wilier, cannier Salmond everything. And nearly blew it. Such generosity from Westminster will not happen again.
Interestingly I think Ed Miliband would be, and would have been, much less of a walkover. Ed might be a dork, but he has a skill at basic, aggressive politicking which Cameron lacks.
The word is "Durh!!!" Eat my [MODERATED] &c.
A fine side-track well worthy of PB traditions, especially as it is the series 25th anniversary.
I think you'll find the word is "D'oh", though, as ever, the Septics muck up the spelling and write "Duh".
Futurama....
Nil points for Sussex. Twelve points for the Shane of Kent!
We need 12mm more rain in December to get to 800mm for the year in Leamington. Severn Trent reservoirs are at 91.8% of capacity. Hose pipe ban by July. :-)
It's curious that the betting markets currently envisage an absolutely massive difference between current polling in Scotland and the final Scottish result, and yet don't seem to be factoring in the possibility of a similar massive difference in England. If they did, one or both of Lab Maj and Con Maj would be at much shorter odds.
FWIW, I think it's the UK-wide rather than the Scottish case where the betting markets are likely to be wrong, i.e. I think neither current Scottish nor current UK-wide polls are likely to be particularly close to the final GE vote shares.
All this talk of a grand coalition is brilliantly whacky. What might the cabinet look like?
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: Yvette Cooper FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron Home: Jeremy Hunt First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron CoE: Jeremy Hunt FSec: Ed Miliband Home: Yvette Cooper First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna Health: Andy Burnham
I'd have thought PM and Chancellor would be different parties, likewise Chancellor and Home, and Home and Foreign. So for example:
PM: Ed Miliband CoE: George Osborne Home: Ed Balls Foreign: David Cameron
Balls and Osborne in the same cabinet. Brave.
Balls and Osborne could work together, I can't possibly see Osborne (or anyone sensible) being prepared to work with Miliband. Indeed even Balls scarcely bothers to hide his contempt for his boss.
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
Der. Just a few points: the timing was hugely relevant. Cameron idiotically gave Salmond years, to build emotional momentum. Cameron could have insisted the electorate include Scots living in the rest of the UK. Cameron could have demanded a Devomax option, killing off Yes completely. Etc etc.
But in his blasé, foolish, arrogant Etonian way Cameron thought he was bound to win, so he gave the wilier, cannier Salmond everything. And nearly blew it. Such generosity from Westminster will not happen again.
Interestingly I think Ed Miliband would be, and would have been, much less of a walkover. Ed might be a dork, but he has a skill at basic, aggressive politicking which Cameron lacks.
Yes, the recent Guardian longform piece about the IndyRef stated that Cameron fell for Salmond's bluff - privately Salmond and co were already planning for a Yes-No, and Cameron then made having a binary question his one and only red line in the talks, The Nats understandably then kept Devo-Max on the table as a way of extracting concessions on other matters, meaning that the government were prepared to do anything to gain a concession that the SNP leadership already thought might be in their best interests, including acceding to putting it back to 2014, which was utterly daft!
SeanT says - '' Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument? For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that? The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid. The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero. Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
Der. Just a few points: the timing was hugely relevant. Cameron idiotically gave Salmond years, to build emotional momentum. Cameron could have insisted the electorate include Scots living in the rest of the UK. Cameron could have demanded a Devomax option, killing off Yes completely. Etc etc.
But in his blasé, foolish, arrogant Etonian way Cameron thought he was bound to win, so he gave the wilier, cannier Salmond everything. And nearly blew it. Such generosity from Westminster will not happen again.
Interestingly I think Ed Miliband would be, and would have been, much less of a walkover. Ed might be a dork, but he has a skill at basic, aggressive politicking which Cameron lacks.
Yes, the recent Guardian longform piece about the IndyRef stated that Cameron fell for Salmond's bluff - privately Salmond and co were already planning for a Yes-No, and Cameron then made having a binary question his one and only red line in the talks, The Nats understandably then kept Devo-Max on the table as a way of extracting concessions on other matters, meaning that the government were prepared to do anything to gain a concession that the SNP leadership already thought might be in their best interests, including acceding to putting it back to 2014, which was utterly daft!
It wasn't exactly private. The SNP had as their conference and , I think, manifesto policy to ask a single yes no question referendum.
Comments
FWIW I doubt there will ever be a formal Lab/SNP coalition, but a minority Labour govt supported by LD and SNP votes is certainly possible.
I doubt we will see Salmond in the cabinet.
*Though not unique for SLab
'Polling expert John Curtice commented: “Murphy is not the magic bullet. It is going to require more than a new kid on the block – he has to persuade people that May is not a re-run of the referendum.”'
Which is interesting given the current Unionist parties' apparent strategy of rerunning indyref for the UKGE.
Both mobs need an introduction to of the realities of the world post 2008.
Come back IG, show them how to do it!
H&I: 31
S.Sc: 31
C.Sc: 22
MidSc: 13
Glag: 15
W.Sc: 24
Loth: 22
NESc: 33
He still has to win a MSP seat in 2016 (if no by election offers itself), but if what you say is true that problem could end up being superseded by other concerns.
Of course, these are Subsamples of Scotland no less - typical size ±100
- SNP continuing to monopolise the centre left.
– Nicola Sturgeon will attract a proportion of the female vote, which had been turned off the SNP by a dislike of Alex Salmond.
– UKIP and the Greens will make further inroads, as in the rest of the UK.
–The SSP will also take some support away.
- A bit of the LibDem resurgence once they are free from the shackles of the coalition.
– SLAB will struggle to get their vote out.
Taking account all the above, in the New Year we could be looking at SLAB falling into the 15-20% area, which would be extinction point. The anointing of Jim Murphy as the potential saviour of SLAB, shows just how out of touch with Scottish politics the Labour party, political commentators and mainstream media have become.
In terms of tactical voting, I could envisage Conservatives voting SNP to add to SLAB’s woes and Greens voting SNP. I don’t envisage there being a credible “Unionist” alliance to try and combat the SNP, as the mainstream parties are all going to be at each other’s throats nationally.
The implication is that people are differentiating between referendum voting and voting on UK governance - and/or have voted No when they want devomax - and on both counts the Unionist parties' strategy of obsessing about the risk of another referendum is therefore likely to fail them. All the talk of it is coming mostly from Unionist quarters, and obiter dicta from Mr Salmond who is often taken out of context - and is not the party leader either
I also think that kind of local [in a broad sense] advantage the SNP enjoys is why English regionalisation would be a disaster (we'd end up with YNP and LNP type parties in Yorkshire, London and elsewhere, with demagogues complaining about spending per head being higher in London/Yorkshire receiving tax money from London and showing no gratitude etc and whipping up division).
Your post makes no sense even after editing, but I think we'll leave it at that.
Daft sods. But a good indication of how things'll go if the short-sighted inflict the kind of cack-handed devolution some seem so keen on. I do wonder if Clegg's cretinous and unnecessary conferring of minority status on Cornwall was an effort to spike the guns of an English Parliament.
That's why regionalisation is a recipe for division, bitterness, and ultimately the end of England. And yes, that sounds a bit doom-laden and dramatic, but no country in the world has a divine right to exist.
London is looked after by the existing trio I think! The reason other parties are doing well/have emerged in the first place is because of that.. where do the "others" do worst?
If Labour loses in Scotland and does not win most seats then a Labour government is not going to happen. It will be up to the Tories to form a government and it will be up to the SNP to decide what they want to do about that.
The Tories winning 326 seats means the end of the Union within a pretty short timeframe. A Tory majority plus an SNP landslide in Scotland would be the SNP's ideal result.
I'll form the Pennine Independence Party.
Is a stepping stone to become the UK's first directly elected Dictator.
http://www.thenortheastparty.org.uk/
And we thought a Grand Coalition was unlikely!
When they did participate (admittedly in uniquely different circumstances) between 1940-45, the outcome was rather more favourable...
London is no more diverse than Scotland.
All you need to do is to focus on an external enemy, and the fact that London pays for the United Kingdom, while politicians from the shires run it.
"a fair deal for London"
Focus on regulations by out of towners who am determined to do London down.
Why shouldn't Londoners be allowed to rule themselves?
I reckon you'd be able to pick up votes from all parties, by the clever expedient (pioneered by ukip and the snp) of focusing on "we should be allowed to choose for ourselves" without being too specific about what those choices are.
Edit: Which would make me French, which is soooo not me.
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/12/21/health-and-safety-notice-of-the-day/
Yep, just like you! Good luck in building your one-way street....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3eyeO0R94
*My definition of brilliant maybe different to other PBers
Us locals go via Woodhead Pass
"Inward investment to Scotland 'highest in 16 years'"
http://tinyurl.com/k8pee5s
Lab ............... 283 - 289
Con .............. 280 - 286
LibDems ......... 29 - 31
UKIP ................ 8 - 10
SNP ............... 22 - 24
PS UKIP on 8-10. That seems a bit optimistic.
Perhaps you can pin your colours to the mast and predict how much inward investment to Scotland in 2014 will have fallen in relation to its own previous figures, and to that of the rUK?
What % chance do you think it is? 25%? If that?
The Nats might have lied about oil and other stuff, but I think plenty of voters up there know that already. It's a question of whether you prefer the Nats lies to the unionists' fear-mongering. Tricky choice.
I tried to post this 10 minutes ago but for some reason it blanked on me.
Splitting the non-Labour vote is obviously beneficial to Labour.
Salmond couldn't win a referendum in optimal circumstances: against a weak and disliked Tory-led government, at a time of major austerity, when he was facing a silly over-confident PM who allowed the Nats to choose the referendum question, the timing, the electorate - everything. And the Better Together team were universally regarded as rubbish. ''
Why do you have to spoil a good argument?
For instance every Scottish party agreed to the age of voters. Who was going to say no to that?
The question? Come off it what difference did that make? it you here who ae implying the Scots are stupid.
The timing? What was the effect of that? Zero.
Its a moot point if Salmond wanted the referendum anyway. Cameron pushed the issue with good effect. And came out of it with the call for EVEL more justified than ever.
There has been a referendum and there will not be another. Who gets what seats makes no difference.
PS - the strong indication is that Osborne will cut taxes on new oil field developments. totalUK can withstand that. Econ0mically the case for the Union is made, lock stock and barrel. Politics in Scotland is reduced to personalities and the ravings of the extreme left wing.
There has been a referendum, thats gone. The union is here and the SNP are in the thrall of the extreme left wing.
PM: Ed Miliband
CoE: Yvette Cooper
FSec: Francis Maude/David Cameron
Home: Jeremy Hunt
First Secretary to the Treasury: Elizabeth Truss
Health: Andy Burnham
PM: David Cameron
CoE: Jeremy Hunt
FSec: Ed Miliband
Home: Yvette Cooper
First Secretary to the Treasury: Chukka Umuna
Health: Andy Burnham
PM: Ed Miliband
CoE: George Osborne
Home: Ed Balls
Foreign: David Cameron
With Meteor and Dave-35 he may have missed the last few years. Bless....
I think you'll find the word is "D'oh", though, as ever, the Septics muck up the spelling and write "Duh".
Nil points for Sussex. Twelve points for the Shane of Kent!
FWIW, I think it's the UK-wide rather than the Scottish case where the betting markets are likely to be wrong, i.e. I think neither current Scottish nor current UK-wide polls are likely to be particularly close to the final GE vote shares.
Ahm oot.
http://order-order.com/2014/12/22/diane-abbott-pockets-110000-of-licence-fee-payer-cash/
World's indispensable nation pledges support, if needed.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-22/china-offers-russia-help-with-suggestion-of-wider-currency-swap.html