Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and Sturgeon. Salmond was focussed on independence. He was reluctant to take ideological positions because he recognised that Nationalism is not a left/right thing and he wanted to keep everyone on board. This made the SNP vulnerable to the tartan Tories tag but also gave them their first breakthrough in seats as the Tories waned in Scotland. Until now most SNP seats have been ex Tory seats.
Sturgeon, building on their period in office has rejected that. She wants the SNP to be a left leaning social Democratic Party that essentially replaces the Labour Party in Scotland.
Will this ultimately produce a revival of the Tories and the recovery of seats like Angus, North Perthshire and Gordon? Maybe and if so I think it is a price that she is willing to pay to dominate the Central belt and hence Scottish politics.
To take full advantage of this opportunity I think the Tories need to rebrand themselves in a way that also allows them to pick up the detritus of Scottish Liberalism. Maybe they should be calling themselves the Unionist party. Just a thought.
I'd agree with everything there apart from your penultimate sentence. Rebranding (or reverting) to the Unionists Party would be a gift for the SNP, which is why Stuart Dickson was so keen on advocating it. It would be far too easy for pro-independence campaigners to conflate unionist with Unionist and so peel off left-of-centre voters to their camp. Given that the original Union referred to was that of Ireland, I'd have slight concerns about any potential sectarian consequences. Maybe that's outdated now but if so, it still raises a history that's best left buried.
That said, rebranding and an amicable separation from London is a sensible move and the Progressive Party wouldn't be a bad name. That said, rebranding only goes so far. The Tory Party rebranded about 170 years ago but never lost its original name.
I agree. The decline of the party dates back to before Thatcher. I would date it to the 1965 merger with the Conservative party of the rest of the UK, though possibly that was a symptom rather than the cause.
It is worth noting that even in 1992, that is after a decade of Thatcher, there were still a dozen Scottish Conservative MPs. Either Thatcher was not as toxic as she is popularly supposed to be, or there is a lag of more than a decade for the effects to show. If so then there may well be a similar lag before any resurgence.
The 2011 Holyrood elections will be interesting. Will SLAB repair itself? Will the SLDs? Will Sturgeon fall back under a tide of PR and dislike of a centralist and socialist agenda?
There are a lot of aspects of Scottish civic society which are societally progressive and liberal while being economically right wing and libertarian. The Tories remain a very, very socially conservative party and if you are right of centre, the SNP offer a much better alternative if you want to see social liberalism policy implemented in a reasonably positive business environment.
That;s not changed under Sturgeon and isn't going to change any time soon. As long as the SNP can offer Social Democracy as a goal of independence while delivering Economic Liberalism they will draw support from both sides.
As for SLAB in 2016, not a hope in hell of any recovery.
The conservatives do need to retake on South Park Conservatism (it loses a bit in translation because we dont have the dingbat baptism bible thumping in our political discourse), but the leadership seem to mistake this with 'modernisation'. Modernisation is about dropping values and replacing them with technocratic values on the economy with the contemporary fashionable values promoted by those who consider themselves progressive. There seemed to be an obsessive desire to make people like Poly Toynbee love them. Weird.
Social liberalism along with economic liberalism can and should go hand in hand.
The Scottish Greens would overtake SLAB before the Conservatives would. The Greens, so long as they keep out of power, are a nice safe haven for pro-Independence people unhappy with the SNP's centralising, authoritarian agenda.
I think you are spot on here. The Greens need to form some sort of relationship with the SSP and Solidarity. If they can manage that, perhaps even going so far as to bring Tommy Swingerdan and Colin Fox on board, they could utterly finish Labour forever in Scotland.
While it's possible that Scottish Labour could be shattered by a combination of a far-left Green Socialist movement, a left-wing SNP and a centre-left Liberal Democrat Party, (1) it won't happen for several years because the Lib Dems are toxic and in the meantime there's nowhere for moderate left-of-centre pro-union voters to go, (2) the Tories should still be guaranteed a mid-teens score at least in those circumstances given the dearth of centre-right alternatives, which is likely to be more than the other two opposition parties and (3) there remains a culturally died-in-the-wool Labour vote, which might be smaller than it once was but remains there nonetheless and will take years to erode completely, even if it's no longer big enough to win seats on its own any more.
The thing is that the solution for Labour, for the Liberals, for the Tories is simple. Scottish Independence.
After Independence, the Tories can become the Progressive Party, offer a long term "offer of Federalism" back into the UK but not being committed to it (along the lines of Peurto Rico's NPP). The Labour Party can divest itself of the New Labour toxin, the Liberals can drop the stupid name and actually become the Liberal Party again.
I genuinely love the irony of this. It is also the only hope of all three of these parties in the long term.
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and Sturgeon. Salmond was focussed on independence. He was reluctant to take ideological positions because he recognised that Nationalism is not a left/right thing and he wanted to keep everyone on board. This made the SNP vulnerable to the tartan Tories tag but also gave them their first breakthrough in seats as the Tories waned in Scotland. Until now most SNP seats have been ex Tory seats.
Sturgeon, building on their period in office has rejected that. She wants the SNP to be a left leaning social Democratic Party that essentially replaces the Labour Party in Scotland.
Will this ultimately produce a revival of the Tories and the recovery of seats like Angus, North Perthshire and Gordon? Maybe and if so I think it is a price that she is willing to pay to dominate the Central belt and hence Scottish politics.
To take full advantage of this opportunity I think the Tories need to rebrand themselves in a way that also allows them to pick up the detritus of Scottish Liberalism. Maybe they should be calling themselves the Unionist party. Just a thought.
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
The Scottish Tories seem to be holding up rather better, with a vote share unchanged. The Scottish Conservatives also had the best Indy ref campaign, being united in a position and emphatically winning.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious Scottish Conservatives are at Holyrood too?
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives?
I appreciate that Scotland has changed a lot since the fifties when most MPs were Conservative, but I would have thought that there must be an electoral place for a party of traditional values of thrift, industry, work ethic and self-improvement.
You have obviously never seen any of their duffers in action. They have no stars , no decent politicians, are limited to a rump of old diehards and going nowhere. They get seats in Holyrood as losers. London sockpuppets and useless, will take an earthquake to change them.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
Still not happened to the Kuomintang in Taiwan or the ANC despite quite a few pretty big Black Swans over the years. Only cost the Lib Dems in Japan 3 years or so in the last 80. CSU have run Bavaria since 1957. Sure, they might decide to f*ck up but realistically, given what you've seen of the SNP party machine, do you really think that will happen before Independence?
That's the thing, the great beauty of the SNP. Their fundamental ethos FORCES good government on Scotland.
But more devolution of tax and spending to Scotland will expose those fault lines.
Likely to go well as long as the recovery continues, as a rising tide floats all boats, but when the economic cycle fades then the stresses will be manifest.
When the economic cycle turns down commodities tend to rise. Can you name a Constituent Country which is rich in commodities?
Didn't you say the other day that oil/gas is less than 10% of the Scottish economy?
In any case I think that you are wrong. Commodities generally fall in economic downturns and go up in periods of worldwide growth.
Oil and related industries are about 20% of Scotland's economy.
Unless of vourse there are two Scotland's, the one at the top end of Britain and the one in Dair's head where 5 million people subsidise 60 million others by through industrious tax returns in Cumbernauld.
But the outcome - it's clearly failed. At the end of the day the English electorate don't care about long term economic plans or confident economic management. They just want free stuff paid for, as always, by Scotland.
jobs. Youst.
They want free stuff from where ever, Scotland if it is convenient, but the Magic Money Tree, or from taxes on people that earn more money than they do, or have more rooms in their hour, or more letters in their name, really they don't care, they just want, it's depressing.
The pervading message in our culture for a generation is that you dont have to do anything to be successful, or at least to be paid. In school is "prizes for all" even if you can't be bothered, or don't try. When you leave school you get money for sitting at home playing on your xbox. Families of kids have now grown up where both their parents and grandparents living on the dole, and have no role model for productive work and a sense of entitlement for being paid to sit on their arse. We have a whole generation of people that don't understand that in the real world you sometimes don't get prizes unless you work hard, and some times not even then.
A lot of people were working hard in the 80s but still lost their jobs. You say: "tough that's life" but people don't like it and unless the Tories regain some interest in the fundamental fairness of economic outcomes there will be a lot of people who won't listen to them.
And what happens if the people's expectations of "fairness" (which in the case means handouts) are writing a cheque the country can't afford to cash.
You show them a better way. You can't win them over by telling them their hopes and aspirations are impossible.
The two party system (Lab/Con) does not operate in Northern Ireland and few English based commentators seem to have noticed that it does not work here in Scotland either. Conservative has been a toxic brand in Scotland for some years (1 MP) and Labour is about to go the same way. This is looking like a trend not a blip. If the two main brands cannot command an overall majority over the whole UK then coalitions may be the future and FPTP is not a good way forward. The Scottish Greens now have 7 times the members they had last year and over the UK the Greens are looking a lot stronger than the LibDems.
To summarise Con and Lab have lost their way in significant areas of the UK and it is possible that we may not see an overall majority for one party again.
Welcome.
Before we say too much about the state of the green vote I think we should see how they perform at a general election. Its very easy to say "green" on a phone poll, or click "green" on an internet poll, and its a convenient "none of the above" place holder for people with a range of political inclinations. The acid test is how much does that vote fade at an election.
The Greens are on roughly 12% to 13% of the Holyrood list vote.
That's about 15 seats, roughly on par with the Tories and only a few behind Labour. The ScotGP don't really care about Westminster, they do care about Holyrood and are about to do very, very well (with plenty of SNP support on the list).
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and
Will this ultimately produce a revival of the Tories and the recovery of seats like Angus, North Perthshire and Gordon? Maybe and if so I think it is a price that she is willing to pay to dominate the Central belt and hence Scottish politics.
To take full advantage of this opportunity I think the Tories need to rebrand themselves in a way that also allows them to pick up the detritus of Scottish Liberalism. Maybe they should be calling themselves the Unionist party. Just a thought.
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
The Scottish Tories seem to be holding up rather better, with a vote share unchanged. The Scottish Conservatives also had the best Indy ref campaign, being united in a position and emphatically winning.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives?
I appreciate that Scotland has changed a lot since the fifties when most MPs were Conservative, but I would have thought that there must be an electoral place for a party of traditional values of thrift, industry, work ethic and self-improvement.
The Tories did well with Ruth although curiously her main opponent was pushing ideas similar to those I set out. Holyrood has been a godsend to them in some respects because the list system allowed them to get elected. But the party is small and old, a remenent of better times, so Ruth has her work cut out. As I have said I think some rebranding is going to be an important part of the mix. The toxicity of the Tories amongst middle class professionals in Scotland who should be natural supporters is profound and needs to be overcome.
Why do the Conservatives have this problem? You'd think that in any part of the country, there'd be at least 25% or so prepared to vote for a right wing party.
they are seen as old duffers run by London , no backbone or voice or interest in Scotland , sockpuppets with no hearts. The few unpleasant duffers in Holyrood elected as losers, amplify this viewpoint.
Indigo..None, Hedge funds invest private money..you obviously missed most of the debates in th HOC and PMQ,s in recent weeks when Ed and his party have raised the issue of Evil Hedge funds taking money away from the down trodden... and now you are saying they were telling porkies well I never..
Morning all and another good thread Herders. The only thing I would disagree with is that Nicola Sturgeon needs a Labour government at Westminster.
If the SNP all but wipes out SLAB in 47 days time and the SCons stage a mini-recovery by winning the odd seat on split votes and recovering former Tory voters who have gone LibDem or SNP, then next year we could see SNP with a comfortable majority at Holyrood and the Tories threatening Labour for 2nd place. As the LibDems already only hold 5 seats, they can be ignored in this context. The SCons would need to start winning back natural Tory territory like Edinburgh Pentlands, Eastwood, West Aberdeenshire and of course Dumfries, the only missing piece across the South of Scotland.
It's possible. I'd suggest it depends whether we alter the electoral system. If FPTP remains then we will see an overall majority, and it's just a question of time and political realignment.
Mr. Dair, on the final pages now.
His treatment of certain groups was reprehensible, and he did act like a dick towards the Scots. On the other hand, he also won rather a lot of victories and, after his father (and before his son) was a strong king who helped improve England's lot.
Besides, how many of those we venerate have been cruel? What did Alexander do to the Bactrians? Caesar committed (and I use the word chosen by TA Dodge decades before WWII) a holocaust against Germanian tribesmen [from memory, around half a million are reckoned to have been slaughtered]. And yet that scarcely registers in anyone's assessment of the man.
Caesar wrote that during his conquest of Gaul, he killed one million people, and enslaved another million. He may not have exaggerated.
But the outcome - it's clearly failed. At the end of the day the English electorate don't care about long term economic plans or confident economic management. They just want free stuff paid for, as always, by Scotland.
jobs. Youst.
They want free stuff from where ever, Scotland if it is convenient, but the Magic Money Tree, or from taxes on people that earn more money than they do, or have more rooms in their hour, or more letters in their name, really they don't care, they just want, it's depressing.
The pervading message in our culture for a generation is that you dont have to do anything to be successful, or at least to be paid. In school is "prizes for all" even if you can't be bothered, or don't try. When you leave school you get money for sitting at home playing on your xbox. Families of kids have now grown up where both their parents and grandparents living on the dole, and have no role model for productive work and a sense of entitlement for being paid to sit on their arse. We have a whole generation of people that don't understand that in the real world you sometimes don't get prizes unless you work hard, and some times not even then.
A lot of people were working hard in the 80s but still lost their jobs. You say: "tough that's life" but people don't like it and unless the Tories regain some interest in the fundamental fairness of economic outcomes there will be a lot of people who won't listen to them.
And what happens if the people's expectations of "fairness" (which in the case means handouts) are writing a cheque the country can't afford to cash.
You show them a better way. You can't win them over by telling them their hopes and aspirations are impossible.
People used to have the expectation of going out to work, doing an honest days work, and providing for their family. Far too many people now have the expectation of sitting on their arse at home, not making an effort and being paid for it by the state. We have even had the rise of people viewing idleness paid for by the tax payers as a "lifestyle choice".
The problem is the Milibands of this world tell them it is possible in the hope that it will get him in to office, and people believe him because he claims to give them what they want without them having to exert any undue effort. That is always going to win compared to a party which advocates effort and self-sufficiency even if it provides the means.
Gone are the days of associations with thousands of members. The one big problem the SNP is going to face is motivate its 90,000 new members to actually go out and do something during the GE. It is pretty easy to pay £10 for a shiny membership card, go to a leader's rally where you can drink coke and eat popcorn and buy a few balloons and key fobs. It is quite another getting them to pound the streets canvassing and delivering leaflets.
The results of this will be interesting
@ERSScotland: Did you campaign during #indyref? still politically active? in a political party? Or not? Fill in our survey! http://t.co/gO6N7QoePI
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
Still not happened to the Kuomintang in Taiwan or the ANC despite quite a few pretty big Black Swans over the years. Only cost the Lib Dems in Japan 3 years or so in the last 80. CSU have run Bavaria since 1957. Sure, they might decide to f*ck up but realistically, given what you've seen of the SNP party machine, do you really think that will happen before Independence?
That's the thing, the great beauty of the SNP. Their fundamental ethos FORCES good government on Scotland.
But more devolution of tax and spending to Scotland will expose those fault lines.
Likely to go well as long as the recovery continues, as a rising tide floats all boats, but when the economic cycle fades then the stresses will be manifest.
When the economic cycle turns down commodities tend to rise. Can you name a Constituent Country which is rich in commodities?
Didn't you say the other day that oil/gas is less than 10% of the Scottish economy?
In any case I think that you are wrong. Commodities generally fall in economic downturns and go up in periods of worldwide growth.
Oil and related industries are about 20% of Scotland's economy.
Unless of vourse there are two Scotland's, the one at the top end of Britain and the one in Dair's head where 5 million people subsidise 60 million others by through industrious tax returns in Cumbernauld.
I take you hate Scotland and the Scots ?
No. I rather like Scotland and its people. My grandmother was Scottish and I am proud of my Scottish ancestors.
I don't like Scotland's political culture though. In particular the vision of welfarism and living off the backs of other peoples work. The oil boom has destroyed the Scottish work ethic. Why work when you can live for free on a windfall?
It's quite hard to believe Ed banged on so much about hedge funds as he must have known details about Martin Taylor would become public at some point. Perhaps his calculation was that Taylor being a hedgie would not emerge until after the GE. Pretty risky though. The saga reinforces the narrative that Labour supporting phone hackers, hedgies etc good, Tory supporting... well you know the rest.
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
The Scottish Tories seem to be holding up rather better, with a vote share unchanged. The Scottish Conservatives also had the best Indy ref campaign, being united in a position and emphatically winning.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious Scottish Conservatives are at Holyrood too?
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives?
I appreciate that Scotland has changed a lot since the fifties when most MPs were Conservative, but I would have thought that there must be an electoral place for a party of traditional values of thrift, industry, work ethic and self-improvement.
"Popular" Scottish Tory leaders didn't start with Davidson. Anabel Goldie was a phenomenal leader for the Scottish Tories but despite her appeal, competence, influence on the minority SNP government and delivery of policy, the Tory vote went.... nowhere. She also had a much better fit for traditional pensioner Tories (as she basically was one).
If Goldie couldn't do it, Davidson can't. There will be no revival of the Tories till they drop the Tory brand, it is toxic.
Totally agree, Davidson while an ok speaker is rubbish, their policies are rubbish , they are just a sub office of London going nowhere, withering away as the blue rinses expire.
Morning all and another good thread Herders. The only thing I would disagree with is that Nicola Sturgeon needs a Labour government at Westminster.
If the SNP all but wipes out SLAB in 47 days time and the SCons stage a mini-recovery by winning the odd seat on split votes and recovering former Tory voters who have gone LibDem or SNP, then next year we could see SNP with a comfortable majority at Holyrood and the Tories threatening Labour for 2nd place. As the LibDems already only hold 5 seats, they can be ignored in this context. The SCons would need to start winning back natural Tory territory like Edinburgh Pentlands, Eastwood, West Aberdeenshire and of course Dumfries, the only missing piece across the South of Scotland.
Morning, Easterross. I was up in your neck of the woods about a month ago - what a delightful place.
The main reason why I think the SNP need a Labour Westminster government is that it provides an attack target, whether that be economic mismanagement or cuts or whatever. By 2016, it'll be nine years since Labour was in power in Holyrood and six since they left in Whitehall; that makes attacking them a lot harder.
On top of that, there would be some Lab-Con movement in the polls on the same basis; probably not much given that Scotland's polling has a very different dynamic but some, all the same. It's true that in 1997, when the Conservatives lost power, there was a swing *to* Labour after the election but they were very different circumstances, where the vast bulk of the recovery from the last recession was already done, and where the Labour leader was exceptionally popular. I would not expect such an unusual situation to occur in 2015 were Miliband to become PM.
The final factor is that putting Labour in power in London is far easier to reconcile with the centre-left narrative Sturgeon wants to develop (and indeed, with what she's already said). Labour will find her far easier to attack (and will be far more motivated to do so), if Salmond and co have just propped up a Tory- or Tory-led government, even if only by sitting on their hands.
Former Liberal leader Lord Steel has said he doubts Liberal Democrat members will want to be part of a coalition after May's general election.
He told the BBC "the most" Lib Dems would accept in another hung parliament is a confidence and supply deal - where policies are agreed on a case-by-case basis, rather than a formal coalition.
There was a "feeling" the party needed to "recharge our values", he said.
The Lib Dems pitch has for a long time been that coalitions are great. They want to change the voting system so that coalitions are the norm. But they don't actually want to be in one...
I see Ecks best mate the pervy priest O Brien has had his wrists slapped by the Vatican - but nothing from Police Scotland yet - having influence obviously helps - very Mafia.
The Tories did well with Ruth although curiously her main opponent was pushing ideas similar to those I set out. Holyrood has been a godsend to them in some respects because the list system allowed them to get elected. But the party is small and old, a remenent of better times, so Ruth has her work cut out. As I have said I think some rebranding is going to be an important part of the mix. The toxicity of the Tories amongst middle class professionals in Scotland who should be natural supporters is profound and needs to be overcome.
David I often get accused of being out of touch but I think you are making the same mistake many of our opponents do. Young people do not join things but that does not mean they do not support things. Many wouldn't be seen dead in Constituency Associations and who can blame them. However our presence in the universities and colleges with CF groups is really encouraging and all over Scotland today, groups of party activists and supporters will be out canvassing and working. You can get an idea of where they are campaigning from the tweets they post during the day.
I have been particularly impressed by the campaign team which is working its way round the Glasgow constituencies and was in my old seat Glasgow East last week.
Much better to have dwindling membership, almost zero representatives in parliament apart from the consolation mandatory prizes , nationally hated , etc. I wonder which party is getting it right, I suspect you would dial London to find out.
But the outcome - it's clearly failed. At the end of the day the English electorate don't care about long term economic plans or confident economic management. They just want free stuff paid for, as always, by Scotland.
jobs. Youst.
They want free stuff from where ever, Scotland if it is convenient, but the Magic Money Tree, or from taxes on people that earn more money than they do, or have more rooms in their hour, or more letters in their name, really they don't care, they just want, it's depressing.
The pervading message in our culture for a generation is that you dont have to do anything to be successful, or at least to be paid. In school is "prizes for all" even if you can't be bothered, or don't try. When you leave school you get money for sitting at home playing on your xbox. Families of kids have now grown up where both their parents and grandparents living on the dole, and have no role model for productive work and a sense of entitlement for being paid to sit on their arse. We have a whole generation of people that don't understand that in the real world you sometimes don't get prizes unless you work hard, and some times not even then.
A lot of people were working hard in the 80s but still lost their jobs. You say: "tough that's life" but people don't like it and unless the Tories regain some interest in the fundamental fairness of economic outcomes there will be a lot of people who won't listen to them.
And what happens if the people's expectations of "fairness" (which in the case means handouts) are writing a cheque the country can't afford to cash.
You show them a better way. You can't win them over by telling them their hopes and aspirations are impossible.
People used to have the expectation of going out to work, doing an honest days work, and providing for their family. Far too many people now have the expectation of sitting on their arse at home, not making an effort and being paid for it by the state. We have even had the rise of people viewing idleness paid for by the tax payers as a "lifestyle choice".
The problem is the Milibands of this world tell them it is possible in the hope that it will get him in to office, and people believe him because he claims to give them what they want without them having to exert any undue effort. That is always going to win compared to a party which advocates effort and self-sufficiency even if it provides the means.
I don't think that's the main political divide in the country. I'm more optimistic about most people's motivations. You scare yourself with a small minority of exceptions.
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and
Will this ultimately produce a revival of the Tories and the recovery of seats like Angus, North Perthshire and Gordon? Maybe and if so I think it is a price that she is willing to pay to dominate the Central belt and hence Scottish politics.
.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives? .
The Tories did well with Ruth although curiously her main opponent was pushing ideas similar to those I set out. Holyrood has been a godsend to them in some respects because the list system allowed them to get elected. But the party is small and old, a remenent of better times, so Ruth has her work cut out. As I have said I think some rebranding is going to be an important part of the mix. The toxicity of the Tories amongst middle class professionals in Scotland who should be natural supporters is profound and needs to be overcome.
Why do the Conservatives have this problem? You'd think that in any part of the country, there'd be at least 25% or so prepared to vote for a right wing party.
they are seen as old duffers run by London , no backbone or voice or interest in Scotland , sockpuppets with no hearts. The few unpleasant duffers in Holyrood elected as losers, amplify this viewpoint.
Its a sad state of affairs. But Ruth Davidson does genuinely seem like a good egg. Her performance on Question Time was exceptional. Not in a way that maybe london based politicians would see, but in the way an ordinary person might.
I define an ordinary person as someone who doesnt take a particularly strong *party* position on many things, but really just wants the best for themselves, their family and community.
She was plain speaking (not in a UKIP 'plain speaking' = rude to people we dont like way) and honest. She gave across integrity (in a way that Sturgeon also does) and decency, the audience appreciated it.
Five years into a conservative led government, on a Question Time in Glasgow, the Conservative politician is the one who gets the best response from the audience.
I suppose the issue isnt her, its the brand she is representing. I have to wonder about advice suggesting she should over egg her autonomy over london Conservatives. I dont think Jim Murphy has managed to reverse Scottish Labour's problems with his OTT disassociating himself with everything london labour does.
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and Sturgeon. Salmond was focussed on independence. He was reluctant to take ideological positions because he recognised that Nationalism is not a left/right thing and he wanted to keep everyone on board. This made the SNP vulnerable to the tartan Tories tag but also gave them their first breakthrough in seats as the Tories waned in Scotland. Until now most SNP seats have been ex Tory seats.
Sturgeon, building on their period in office has rejected that. She wants the SNP to be a left leaning social Democratic Party that essentially replaces the Labour Party in Scotland.
Will this ultimately produce a revival of the Tories and the recovery of seats like Angus, North Perthshire and Gordon? Maybe and if so I think it is a price that she is willing to pay to dominate the Central belt and hence Scottish politics.
To take full advantage of this opportunity I think the Tories need to rebrand themselves in a way that also allows them to pick up the detritus of Scottish Liberalism. Maybe they should be calling themselves the Unionist party. Just a thought.
They should rebrand as the Progressive Party which doesn't tie them into permanent Unionism and harks back to the Unionist bloc in Local Government. But they've rejected this, Murdo had it on the cards and the Tories said no, they are fully bought in to Westminster domination.
I think they rejected Murdo rather than the idea. I think the idea is right even if the "progressives" have a CDU type arrangement with the Tories at Westminster. I hope once May is out the way things will start to move. Scotland really can't live with 2 parties competing as to who is the most left wing and no alternative.
Your hopes will be dashed David, certainly whilst Davidson is there, she is a London puppet. If there had been any appetite they would have went with Murdo and then changed leaders, they chose London. Going nowhere,
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 17th March Projection) :
Con 308 (-2) .. Lab 248 (-2) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 36 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 18 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - TCTC Warwickshire North - TCTC Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain from TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 17 Mar - Enfield North moves from TCTC to Likely Lab GAIN
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
The Scottish Tories seem to be holding up rather better, with a vote share unchanged. The Scottish Conservatives also had the best Indy ref campaign, being united in a position and emphatically winning.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious Scottish Conservatives are at Holyrood too?
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives?
I appreciate that Scotland has changed a lot since the fifties when most MPs were Conservative, but I would have thought that there must be an electoral place for a party of traditional values of thrift, industry, work ethic and self-improvement.
"Popular" Scottish Tory leaders didn't start with Davidson. Anabel Goldie was a phenomenal leader for the Scottish Tories but despite her appeal, competence, influence on the minority SNP government and delivery of policy, the Tory vote went.... nowhere. She also had a much better fit for traditional pensioner Tories (as she basically was one).
If Goldie couldn't do it, Davidson can't. There will be no revival of the Tories till they drop the Tory brand, it is toxic.
Totally agree, Davidson while an ok speaker is rubbish, their policies are rubbish , they are just a sub office of London going nowhere, withering away as the blue rinses expire.
Explain to me.
What is wrong, on a personal or political basis of a single member of the Scottish Conservative Party?
In reality there is nothing wrong with any of them. they hold reasonable and solid views on how to govern and would make a good Scottish Government in a post Independence Scotland.
Thatcher is dead. She isn't relevant. Worse, on May 8th if it wasn't for attitudes like yours Scotland would have the chance of Full Fiscal Autonomy because it would be GUARANTEED by David Cameron as part of a Joint Bill on EVEL.
But the SNP won't be able to accept it, won't even be able to consider it. Because of backward attitudes. Like yours.
Alex Salmond’s new book about the independence referendum is the “longest exercise in literary masturbation since politics began”, Paddy Ashdown has said in an outspoken attack on its smug tone.
We wouldn't waste time arguing about how to revive Ratners. The Scottish Conservatives need to be wound up and all links with the English party broken. The concept of a Scottish Unionist party might have some legs, but a Scottish Federalist Party might do better.
Do the Scottish Conservatives have a devo-max shopping list? If so then a federalist party would have a lot of potential. Most Scots wanted devo-max (indeed the Yes campaign acknowledged this with its farcical currency union position).
LOL, they would have devolution repealed if they could , they are dinosaurs.
Alex Salmond’s new book about the independence referendum is the “longest exercise in literary masturbation since politics began”, Paddy Ashdown has said in an outspoken attack on its smug tone.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
Still not happened to the Kuomintang in Taiwan or the ANC despite quite a few pretty big Black Swans over the years. Only cost the Lib Dems in Japan 3 years or so in the last 80. CSU have run Bavaria since 1957. Sure, they might decide to f*ck up but realistically, given what you've seen of the SNP party machine, do you really think that will happen before Independence?
That's the thing, the great beauty of the SNP. Their fundamental ethos FORCES good government on Scotland.
But more devolution of tax and spending to Scotland will expose those fault lines.
Likely to go well as long as the recovery continues, as a rising tide floats all boats, but when the economic cycle fades then the stresses will be manifest.
They are not devolving anything though, just relabelling what is in place calling it income tax, and cutting Barnett by huge amount. This will result in more animosity as London squeeze us and mean more SNP support.
It's quite hard to believe Ed banged on so much about hedge funds as he must have known details about Martin Taylor would become public at some point. Perhaps his calculation was that Taylor being a hedgie would not emerge until after the GE. Pretty risky though. The saga reinforces the narrative that Labour supporting phone hackers, hedgies etc good, Tory supporting... well you know the rest.
Labour have already been out and about, explaining that Hedge Funders are OK, except when they're on the receiving end of tax breaks.
Alex Salmond’s new book about the independence referendum is the “longest exercise in literary masturbation since politics began”, Paddy Ashdown has said in an outspoken attack on its smug tone.
The two party system (Lab/Con) does not operate in Northern Ireland and few English based commentators seem to have noticed that it does not work here in Scotland either. Conservative has been a toxic brand in Scotland for some years (1 MP) and Labour is about to go the same way. This is looking like a trend not a blip. If the two main brands cannot command an overall majority over the whole UK then coalitions may be the future and FPTP is not a good way forward. The Scottish Greens now have 7 times the members they had last year and over the UK the Greens are looking a lot stronger than the LibDems.
To summarise Con and Lab have lost their way in significant areas of the UK and it is possible that we may not see an overall majority for one party again.
People asked in all honesty whether Labour could ever win an election after their 1992 defeat. Turned out they could. In fact, it's almost inevitable with any single-member electoral system that it'll return a majority for someone more often than not, unless you either have a Balkanised structure, with each area fielding its own parties, or a sectarian-based one with no dominant player. Even then, fairly stable coalition blocks will emerge.
I remain to be convinced by the Greens. They've had flashes in the pan before; it's all based on not being someone else and their politicians, when put under the spotlight, are frequently found to be wanting, if not downright loony. Let's see how long those members last.
Mr. Dair, not sure the ANC's the best example to follow given problems over crime, energy supply, AIDS, corruption and so forth. What happens when they stop walking to electoral victories could be rather bad (in the South Africa Question Time special, it's my understanding that Zimbabwe-style land acquisition was a popular suggestion).
Shame we don't have a government that sticks up for ethnic Brits wherever they maybe. No wonder the rest of the world think we are pathetic.
Given that OGH has not exactly been a fan of UKIP, I hope his claimed UKIP sources with the inside information about Thanet South in yesterdays "Labour should be second favourite in Thanet South not a 10-1 outsider" thread haven't been feeding him duff gen. Presumably this was the tip he rather excitedly reported in the comments on March 19th saying "Just got back from London with some very good info. I'm getting my bets on before sharing."
I hope it occured to him that; given the percieved - up to now - close call between UKIP and Tory was likely to see Labour voters tactically vote Tory; it is very much in UKIPs interests to big up the Labour candidates chances to an acquaintance who might well go back to Bedford and splash the Labour canditates good progress all over his very widely read blog, so deterring Thanet South Labour voters from tactical voting when the media pick up on it. Looks to me like it might be a clever move by the Kippers at OGHs expense.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
Former Liberal leader Lord Steel has said he doubts Liberal Democrat members will want to be part of a coalition after May's general election.
He told the BBC "the most" Lib Dems would accept in another hung parliament is a confidence and supply deal - where policies are agreed on a case-by-case basis, rather than a formal coalition.
There was a "feeling" the party needed to "recharge our values", he said.
The Lib Dems pitch has for a long time been that coalitions are great. They want to change the voting system so that coalitions are the norm. But they don't actually want to be in one...
What exactly is the point of the Lib Dems?
The Libdems are in a mess. They don't seem to be able to define themselves by what they are or what they aren't. Lord Steel seems to be saying "what are we about? Er....hang on a bit, we'll have a think and let you know. But please, still vote for us in the meantime...."
Has anyone considered a solution to the SNP problem in Scotland could be another referendum? A referendum on full fiscal independence within the Union.
Such a referendum would inevitably have to be focussed much more on economic reality than the independence referendum, and such a debate would put it firmly on the strong ground of the Unionist argument. Even better in current circumstances with the Oil price doing what it is. It would be a lot harder for the SNP to use emotional arguments to make their case.
And if such a referendum decisively rejected the SNP position then it would implicitly destroy the case for Independence. The SNP would have nowhere to go.
(and even if, although I think very unlikely, the Scots did vote for it, the consequences would not be irreversible, albeit any failure of the new settlement would allow a proper re-evaluation of the distribution of resources within the UK. And if they voted yes, and it actually succeeded, well good luck to them).
Mr. Alex, full fiscal independence is unacceptable, and would also make the Union pointless. Except as a stepping stone to full separation, I can't see why anyone would want it.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
good government on Scotland.
But more devolution of tax and spending to Scotland will expose those fault lines.
Likely to go well as long as the recovery continues, as a rising tide floats all boats, but when the economic cycle fades then the stresses will be manifest.
When the economic cycle turns down commodities tend to rise. Can you name a Constituent Country which is rich in commodities?
Didn't you say the other day that oil/gas is less than 10% of the Scottish economy?
In any case I think that you are wrong. Commodities generally fall in economic downturns and go up in periods of worldwide growth.
Oil and related industries are about 20% of Scotland's economy.
Unless of vourse there are two Scotland's, the one at the top end of Britain and the one in Dair's head where 5 million people subsidise 60 million others by through industrious tax returns in Cumbernauld.
I take you hate Scotland and the Scots ?
No. I rather like Scotland and its people. My grandmother was Scottish and I am proud of my Scottish ancestors.
I don't like Scotland's political culture though. In particular the vision of welfarism and living off the backs of other peoples work. The oil boom has destroyed the Scottish work ethic. Why work when you can live for free on a windfall?
You may have Scottish ancestors but are totally ignorant of Scotland. Where do you get the pathetic vision from the Daily mail. You have obviously never been to Scotland and only know about it from right wing rags. The oil boom has all gone to London apart from a very few people in Aberdeen. Most of Scotland has never seen a penny from its oil. I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
It's amazing what can change in a short time period. The welfare changes from 2008/9 onwards have completely changed this notion of 'lifestyle choice', sometimes its been really hard, some people who had completely got into the mindset that either they were to ill to work, or that work was for other people, having to realise that if you can work, you must do so. But that realisation has happened. The sheer number of benefits sanctions is testament to an attitude from some people that there are no rules. For those of us who work there are certain rules. 1) Don't be late. If you are late, you need a good reason, and you need to tell your boss you are running late, and dont make a habit of it. 2) If you have an emergency so you cant make your shift, you tell your company as soon as you know. They are relying on you. You do not under any circumstances just not 'turn up'. 3) If your company asks you to do a series of tasks, as part of your job, you do them. If you dont do them, there will be consequences. 4) The organisation you work for are not interested in why you cant do things, but will normally be flexible if you are flexible back. But you must remember, you fit your world around your job, not your job around your world.
All this seems common sense. But believe it or not, such obvious ways to behave are alien to some people. They think it is acceptable to not keep appointments, to be repeatedly late, and to not bother doing what is expected of them. And why should they? There was a situation (especially if you had children), that there wasnt really any reward/punishment for co-operating with the DWP. It didnt matter, if you went from one benefit onto another, you would still get your money.
Not any more, and some people are shocked by it. It must be a shock to go to the cashpoint to find out you havent been 'paid' (as they call it).
Hedge Funds just the last in a very long line of It's OK If Labour Does It.
That albatross of hypocrisy around their necks keeps flapping its outsized wings.... I can't think of a single Labour attack line that doesn't have a one or two word rebuttal to send their shills scuttling back to the deep bunker...
Jack's ARSE does seem to be swinging to a Scottish tune, but the rise in the LDs does seem more than a little unexpected.
PBers need to recall that my ARSE is not a nowcast and shouldn't be viewed in the context of the fluctuations and hyper ventilation sometimes seen here with the odd poll and news event.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
It largely depends on the Region and the effect.
If every SNP list vote was a Green list vote, then Holyrood would have 75% or so pro-Independence members and the Greens would be the official opposition, the Liberals wouldn't exist and the Tories and Labour would be small rumps.
My personal opinion is that losing one or two SNP list seats is acceptable to replace a dozen SLAB and 4 or 5 Tories with Greens. Other opinions such as Mr Kelly do not agree.
Regardless of the overall picture, I do not believe the SNP will hit 52%-55% and get an additional List member after a clean sweep in Glasgow. Therefore I will do my bit to boost the Green vote so they get a second seat on the List (at the expense of either Ms Davidson or a Labourite).
After yesterday when we all got an insight into UKIP practices can anyone with an IQ above room temperature still be considering voting for them?
Her defence of 'reappropriating EU funds to a better cause' was particularly nauseating but wasn't a similar argument put forward by their party leader when he had issues with his expenses?
After yesterday when we all got an insight into UKIP practices can anyone with an IQ above room temperature still be considering voting for them?
Her defence of 'reappropriating EU funds to a better cause' was particularly nauseating but wasn't a similar argument put forward by their party leader when he had issues with his expenses?
You may have Scottish ancestors but are totally ignorant of Scotland. Where do you get the pathetic vision from the Daily mail. You have obviously never been to Scotland and only know about it from right wing rags. The oil boom has all gone to London apart from a very few people in Aberdeen. Most of Scotland has never seen a penny from its oil. I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
I actually think independence would have been something that would have sorted out some of the welfarism that is prevalent in certain parts of Scotland. As a small independent state Scotland couldnt sustain wide scale dependency and you would as a matter of necessity sort it out.
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and
.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives? .
The Tories did well with Ruth although curiously her main opponent was pushing ideas similar to those I set out. Holyrood has been a godsend to them in some respects because the list system allowed them to get elected. But the party is small and old, a remenent of better times, so Ruth has her work cut out. As I have said I think some rebranding is going to be an important part of the mix. The toxicity of the Tories amongst middle class professionals in Scotland who should be natural supporters is profound and needs to be overcome.
Why do the Conservatives have this problem? You'd think that in any part of the country, there'd be at least 25% or so prepared to vote for a right wing party.
they are seen as old duffers run by London , no backbone or voice or interest in Scotland , sockpuppets with no hearts. The few unpleasant duffers in Holyrood elected as losers, amplify this viewpoint.
Its a sad state of affairs. But Ruth Davidson does genuinely seem like a good egg. Her performance on Question Time was exceptional. Not in a way that maybe london based politicians would see, but in the way an ordinary person might.
I suppose the issue isnt her, its the brand she is representing. I have to wonder about advice suggesting she should over egg her autonomy over london Conservatives. I dont think Jim Murphy has managed to reverse Scottish Labour's problems with his OTT disassociating himself with everything london labour does.
Murphy is just a London plant. Davidson is a good speaker but she is trying to sell snake oil to people who know what it is. Unfortunately she is backed and supports London so doing no good whatsoever. AS already pointed out , until they get rid of their baggage and start thinking about Scotland and what could and should be done there they are also rans. People like Dair or myself will never vote Tory under current circumstances. I am a right wing hang em and flog em type but with a heart for people with real misfortunes. Plenty like me in Scotland if Tories could find a heart.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
Still not happened to the Kuomintang in Taiwan or the ANC despite quite a few pretty big Black Swans over the years. Only cost the Lib Dems in Japan 3 years or so in the last 80. CSU have run Bavaria since 1957. Sure, they might decide to f*ck up but realistically, given what you've seen of the SNP party machine, do you really think that will happen before Independence?
That's the thing, the great beauty of the SNP. Their fundamental ethos FORCES good government on Scotland.
The one golden rule of history is that all regimes fall eventually. Sometimes it takes quite a long time but it always happens. Whether from internal dissent and division, external pressure or simply exhaustion and running out of steam (or a combination thereof), something, sometime will bring them all down.
After yesterday when we all got an insight into UKIP practices can anyone with an IQ above room temperature still be considering voting for them?
Her defence of 'reappropriating EU funds to a better cause' was particularly nauseating but wasn't a similar argument put forward by their party leader when he had issues with his expenses?
After yesterday when we all got an insight into UKIP practices can anyone with an IQ above room temperature still be considering voting for them?
Her defence of 'reappropriating EU funds to a better cause' was particularly nauseating but wasn't a similar argument put forward by their party leader when he had issues with his expenses?
Where as getting locked out of parliament for accepting cash for influencing parliament is completely acceptable
On 9 December 2010, Geoff Hoon along with Stephen Byers and Richard Caborn were banned from parliament, the Standards and Privileges Committee banned Geoff Hoon for a minimum five years as his was the most serious breach, whilst Byers received two years and Caborn six months
not forgetting
Three Labour Peers were suspended on 18 October 2010 due to their expenses claims: Lord Bhatia was suspended from the House of Lords for eight months and told to repay £27,446; Lord Paul suspended from the House of Lords for four months and ordered to pay back £41,982 and Baroness Uddin faces a police investigation for alleged fraud for claiming at least £180,000 in expenses by designating an empty flat, and previously an allegedly nonexistent property as her main residence. She was suspended from the House of Lords until the end of 2012 and required to repay £125,349.
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
The Scottish Tories seem to be holding up rather better, with a vote share unchanged. The Scottish Conservatives also had the best Indy ref campaign, being united in a position and emphatically winning.
Ruth Davidson seems a very capable and distinctive leader. I wonder if the near total loss of Westminster representation for Scottish Tories has meant that the more able and ambitious Scottish Conservatives are at Holyrood too?
Are there any other rising stars in the Scottish Conservatives?
I appreciate that Scotland has changed a lot since the fifties when most MPs were Conservative, but I would have thought that there must be an electoral place for a party of traditional values of thrift, industry, work ethic and self-improvement.
"Popular" Scottish Tory leaders didn't start with Davidson. Anabel Goldie was a phenomenal leader for the Scottish Tories but despite her appeal, competence, influence on the minority SNP government and delivery of policy, the Tory vote went.... nowhere. She also had a much better fit for traditional pensioner Tories (as she basically was one).
If Goldie couldn't do it, Davidson can't. There will be no revival of the Tories till they drop the Tory brand, it is toxic.
Totally agree, Davidson while an ok speaker is rubbish, their policies are rubbish , they are just a sub office of London going nowhere, withering away as the blue rinses expire.
Explain to me.
What is wrong, on a personal or political basis of a single member of the Scottish Conservative Party?
In reality there is nothing wrong with any of them. they hold reasonable and solid views on how to govern and would make a good Scottish Government in a post Independence Scotland.
Thatcher is dead. She isn't relevant. Worse, on May 8th if it wasn't for attitudes like yours Scotland would have the chance of Full Fiscal Autonomy because it would be GUARANTEED by David Cameron as part of a Joint Bill on EVEL.
But the SNP won't be able to accept it, won't even be able to consider it. Because of backward attitudes. Like yours.
LOL, where to start , I will just mention one arse , Johnstone. I have yet to hear one single decent utterance from a Tory in Scotland. I don't give a toss about Thatcher , I used to vote for her mind you. You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers. It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
the SNP will screw up soon like all socialist parties do - like Labour has on the NHS in Wales and then can be kicked in the head. Unemployment is rising in Scotland - if that continues then the Teflon could be severely tested. Even the mighty Gordon Brown fell to earth eventually - and how...
Clutching at the straw of a single month's Unemployment figures is not going to help you very much. Scottish unemployment goes ahead of UK wide unemployment about 2 months in 12 each year. Has done since the SNP became the Scottish Government.
But the other 10 months....
You miss the point Dair- it will be something on their watch - happened to very government in the history on time ever.
Still not happened to the Kuomintang in Taiwan or the ANC despite quite a few pretty big Black Swans over the years. Only cost the Lib Dems in Japan 3 years or so in the last 80. CSU have run Bavaria since 1957. Sure, they might decide to f*ck up but realistically, given what you've seen of the SNP party machine, do you really think that will happen before Independence?
That's the thing, the great beauty of the SNP. Their fundamental ethos FORCES good government on Scotland.
The one golden rule of history is that all regimes fall eventually. Sometimes it takes quite a long time but it always happens. Whether from internal dissent and division, external pressure or simply exhaustion and running out of steam (or a combination thereof), something, sometime will bring them all down.
I don't dispute that, I was merely pointing out the nonsense of Flashman's argument.
Alex Salmond’s new book about the independence referendum is the “longest exercise in literary masturbation since politics began”, Paddy Ashdown has said in an outspoken attack on its smug tone.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
LOL, where to start , I will just mention one arse , Johnstone. I have yet to hear one single decent utterance from a Tory in Scotland. I don't give a toss about Thatcher , I used to vote for her mind you. You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers. It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
Cameron will come to the table if it serves his purpose. There is a very real possiblity that FFA will be on the table IF the SNP agree a joint bill on EVEL. It's fundamentally a good idea
You seem angry that I would not consider Ruth Davidson as being beyond the pale. That's a fairly ridiculous viewpoint and resorting to insults like that doesn't really make your argument more compelling. The Tories under Goldie seemed to be quite competent enough to work with the SNP. Under Davidson they also seem quite capable of consensus politics (in a way SLAB and the Liberals most definately are not).
I voted Yes. I didn't harm independence in any way.
Has anyone considered a solution to the SNP problem in Scotland could be another referendum? A referendum on full fiscal independence within the Union.
Such a referendum would inevitably have to be focussed much more on economic reality than the independence referendum, and such a debate would put it firmly on the strong ground of the Unionist argument. Even better in current circumstances with the Oil price doing what it is. It would be a lot harder for the SNP to use emotional arguments to make their case.
And if such a referendum decisively rejected the SNP position then it would implicitly destroy the case for Independence. The SNP would have nowhere to go.
(and even if, although I think very unlikely, the Scots did vote for it, the consequences would not be irreversible, albeit any failure of the new settlement would allow a proper re-evaluation of the distribution of resources within the UK. And if they voted yes, and it actually succeeded, well good luck to them).
The unionists will not risk a drubbing , they would get hammered.
@notme - People have been sanctioned for going to job interviews instead of job centre appointments even when they tell the job centre in advance. That's why the number of sanctions is so high.
I expect they'd be sanctioned for going to the job centre instead of the interview too. The system is Kafkaesque.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
That is why sensible people will be SNP - SNP
If you live in Edinburgh SNP/SNP is a complete waste of a List vote in all possible circumstances. If you live in Mid Scotland or Glasgow, SNP/SNP is a wasted list vote in almost all conceivable outcomes (and the Westminster election will confirm that so there is no risk). In NE and Highlands, it's meh.
A stronger Green composition in Holyrood would be very good for Governance. As well as being pro-Indy they would put forward bills on drug decriminalisation and ending Apartheid which the SNP will not touch with a bargepole.
You may have Scottish ancestors but are totally ignorant of Scotland. Where do you get the pathetic vision from the Daily mail. You have obviously never been to Scotland and only know about it from right wing rags. The oil boom has all gone to London apart from a very few people in Aberdeen. Most of Scotland has never seen a penny from its oil. I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
I actually think independence would have been something that would have sorted out some of the welfarism that is prevalent in certain parts of Scotland. As a small independent state Scotland couldnt sustain wide scale dependency and you would as a matter of necessity sort it out.
Exactly , independence would force the country to change totally. Getting pocket money from London to prop up low wage economy is no way to be. We should be spending our own money , there is plenty of it , wisely and building a decent country rather than being an ignored corner of a former great country.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
It largely depends on the Region and the effect.
If every SNP list vote was a Green list vote, then Holyrood would have 75% or so pro-Independence members and the Greens would be the official opposition, the Liberals wouldn't exist and the Tories and Labour would be small rumps.
My personal opinion is that losing one or two SNP list seats is acceptable to replace a dozen SLAB and 4 or 5 Tories with Greens. Other opinions such as Mr Kelly do not agree.
Regardless of the overall picture, I do not believe the SNP will hit 52%-55% and get an additional List member after a clean sweep in Glasgow. Therefore I will do my bit to boost the Green vote so they get a second seat on the List (at the expense of either Ms Davidson or a Labourite).
OK, I understand the logic there, though in the case of Glasgow, where Labour still won four seats in 2011, the SNP wouldn't need to be anywhere near 52%+ to be winning list seats.
As an aside, I think that if such split voting became the norm, it would undermine the legitimacy of AMS as a system as the results would be widely seen as unfair.
on-topic - avoid Scottish threads, they're bad for your health.
off-topic
Can't find a single article with BBC on-line regarding the secrete Labour hedge fund donor.
With so many news papers covering it, one would have thought Aunty would have her own story to tell, especially as Ed tried his hardest to keep it under wraps.
You may have Scottish ancestors but are totally ignorant of Scotland. Where do you get the pathetic vision from the Daily mail. You have obviously never been to Scotland and only know about it from right wing rags. The oil boom has all gone to London apart from a very few people in Aberdeen. Most of Scotland has never seen a penny from its oil. I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
I actually think independence would have been something that would have sorted out some of the welfarism that is prevalent in certain parts of Scotland. As a small independent state Scotland couldnt sustain wide scale dependency and you would as a matter of necessity sort it out.
Exactly , independence would force the country to change totally. Getting pocket money from London to prop up low wage economy is no way to be. We should be spending our own money , there is plenty of it , wisely and building a decent country rather than being an ignored corner of a former great country.
Scotland ignored? Something wrong with your state of mind?
LOL, where to start , I will just mention one arse , Johnstone. I have yet to hear one single decent utterance from a Tory in Scotland. I don't give a toss about Thatcher , I used to vote for her mind you. You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers. It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
Cameron will come to the table if it serves his purpose. There is a very real possiblity that FFA will be on the table IF the SNP agree a joint bill on EVEL. It's fundamentally a good idea
You seem angry that I would not consider Ruth Davidson as being beyond the pale. That's a fairly ridiculous viewpoint and resorting to insults like that doesn't really make your argument more compelling. The Tories under Goldie seemed to be quite competent enough to work with the SNP. Under Davidson they also seem quite capable of consensus politics (in a way SLAB and the Liberals most definately are not).
I voted Yes. I didn't harm independence in any way.
Goldie was good for a laugh and played the favourite Auntie well. She was surrounded by duffers. Davidson whilst a good speaker and reasonably nice sounding person is just her proxy and a London puppet. Listening to her in Holyrood is mind numbing , never any positives but sticks to SNP bad and tries to pretend the Tories care. They are moribund and going nowhere, not known as the nasty party for nnothing. They have nothing whatsoever to offer Scotland. I note you did not challenge my one example of the type of arse they have on their benches. Cameron or any other Tory prime minister will not help Scotland. We need to get a backbone and do it for ourselves , hoping to get crumbs from Cameron does not cut it. They will continue to deny Scotland powers and the end is inevitable.
You may have Scottish ancestors but are totally ignorant of Scotland. Where do you get the pathetic vision from the Daily mail. You have obviously never been to Scotland and only know about it from right wing rags. The oil boom has all gone to London apart from a very few people in Aberdeen. Most of Scotland has never seen a penny from its oil. I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
I actually think independence would have been something that would have sorted out some of the welfarism that is prevalent in certain parts of Scotland. As a small independent state Scotland couldnt sustain wide scale dependency and you would as a matter of necessity sort it out.
Exactly , independence would force the country to change totally. Getting pocket money from London to prop up low wage economy is no way to be. We should be spending our own money , there is plenty of it , wisely and building a decent country rather than being an ignored corner of a former great country.
Scotland ignored? Something wrong with your state of mind?
Lots of hot air but still short changed and controlled by London as ever.
The Libdems are in a mess. They don't seem to be able to define themselves by what they are or what they aren't. Lord Steel seems to be saying "what are we about? Er....hang on a bit, we'll have a think and let you know. But please, still vote for us in the meantime...."
Er, right.....
If Iwas a LibDem I'd think this fair enough. Being a junior partner is tough and it's been particularly horrible for them - a pause to reestablish their position as idealistic outsiders challenging the establishment makes sense, and if they don't they risk having the Greens occupy the space.
I don't think that's the main political divide in the country. I'm more optimistic about most people's motivations. You scare yourself with a small minority of exceptions.
That's well put. There is, I think, a pretty broad perception that Tory and Labour macroeconomics are not going to look gigantically different. The dividie has come down to a general impression that insofar as money is available, the Tories will spend it on cutting some taxes, notably for middle-earners, and Labour will spend it on improving some public services, notably health.
One can argue about whether these perceptions are right. But if people have them, it's quite a legitimate choice either way.
(Apologies to David for being 100% O/T - interesting article, but I don't know enough about Scottish politics to comment.)
Ah ha- this is my first sighting of Jack's ARSE for years. I thought the crumpled, saggy, wrinkled, specimen was put out of public sight after it's spectacular successes at the US elections.
For those pouring scorn on Jack's ARSE, beware, it has regularly been the most accurate predictor of political events for years, US elections, mayoral elections, by elections. But like anything else in life, perhaps it has finally been put into work one election too far, or there again perhaps not. Perhaps Jack's ARSE is impregnable.
If Iwas a LibDem I'd think this fair enough. Being a junior partner is tough and it's been particularly horrible for them - a pause to reestablish their position as idealistic outsiders challenging the establishment makes sense
Not, it doesn't really. You can be a partner in Government, or you can be an idealistic outsider challenging the establishment. You can't be both, as they have discovered.
It seems the Lib Dems are happier as outsiders, which is fine, except their rhetoric remains (apart from David Steel) that they want to be partners in Government.
OK, I understand the logic there, though in the case of Glasgow, where Labour still won four seats in 2011, the SNP wouldn't need to be anywhere near 52%+ to be winning list seats.
As an aside, I think that if such split voting became the norm, it would undermine the legitimacy of AMS as a system as the results would be widely seen as unfair.
My base logic is that if the SNP win all 8 Glasgow seats in Westminster they will win all 9 seats at Holyrood. If they don't win Glasgow NE and a couple of the other seats are very close, I might consider SNP/SNP/
You're right about it being a flaw of AMS. Arguably it is also a strength as you can actually vote for a policy between parties (in this case Independence). But AMS would likely be better served with a "carried" list vote where your party choice in the candidate vote carried over for the PR portion.
Where does this idea that educated middle-class professionals are naturally Tory come from?
I'm one of those, under 40, and so are the vast majority of my friends. But I'd say barely 25% of my friends (if that) are centre-right to right-wing. If I post something vaguely Tory on Facebook, for instance, left-wing critiques and comments pour in like a meteor shower. I then might get a sympathetic email or two from a couple of friends afterwards on yahoo mail.
To the professional under 40s, being right-wing is something consenting adults do in private.
Most interesting thread - many thanks to everyone and especially Mr Herdson. What strikes me about the Tories in Scotland is the sheer stagnation of their voting intention numbers when all around them volcanoes are erupting and bolides are impacting on the Labour dinosaurs and LD lizards*. Murdo Fraser's proposal to go indy of London is the great counterfactual of SCUP history: one does wonder if Ms Goldie and Ms Davidson made that much difference either way (and that is not intended to their discredit: Ms Goldie dealt with the SNP minority administration in a commendably positive way in contrast to SLAB and (to some extent) the LDs).
I also note Mr Herdson spotted (in his comment) the dangerously ambiguous nature of 'Unionist' in Scotland, certainly in the West Central belt. Very well spotted.
The 2016 Holyrood vote of SNP/SNP or SNP/Green is plainly going to make an interesting thread which I for one would find very informative - but nearer the time ...
LOL, where to start , I will just mention one arse , Johnstone. I have yet to hear one single decent utterance from a Tory in Scotland. I don't give a toss about Thatcher , I used to vote for her mind you. You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers. It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
Cameron will come to the table if it serves his purpose. There is a very real possiblity that FFA will be on the table IF the SNP agree a joint bill on EVEL. It's fundamentally a good idea
You seem angry that I would not consider Ruth Davidson as being beyond the pale. That's a fairly ridiculous viewpoint and resorting to insults like that doesn't really make your argument more compelling. The Tories under Goldie seemed to be quite competent enough to work with the SNP. Under Davidson they also seem quite capable of consensus politics (in a way SLAB and the Liberals most definately are not).
I voted Yes. I didn't harm independence in any way.
Goldie was good for a laugh and played the favourite Auntie well. She was surrounded by duffers. Davidson whilst a good speaker and reasonably nice sounding person is just her proxy and a London puppet. Listening to her in Holyrood is mind numbing , never any positives but sticks to SNP bad and tries to pretend the Tories care. They are moribund and going nowhere, not known as the nasty party for nnothing. They have nothing whatsoever to offer Scotland. I note you did not challenge my one example of the type of arse they have on their benches. Cameron or any other Tory prime minister will not help Scotland. We need to get a backbone and do it for ourselves , hoping to get crumbs from Cameron does not cut it. They will continue to deny Scotland powers and the end is inevitable.
It was Davidson and not London who led the Tories to be the best offer at Smith. 100% Davidson. She drove that, if it had been here and the SNP it would have been close to FFA. That wasn't what Cameron wanted but she made the call.
Lol, well done for revealing your prejudices in the first sentence of your first post.
Not sure how it is "prejudiced" to think that the SNP are a problem for Unionists. It is a statement of fact, isn't it?
No because what you meant was "the solution to the Scottish/English democratic deficit problem" and what you said was "the solution to the SNP problem".
The SNP are not a problem. They are a democratic outlet.
LOL, where to start , I will just mention one arse , Johnstone. I have yet to hear one single decent utterance from a Tory in Scotland. I don't give a toss about Thatcher , I used to vote for her mind you. You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers. It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
Cameron will come to the table if it serves his purpose. There is a very real possiblity that FFA will be on the table IF the SNP agree a joint bill on EVEL. It's fundamentally a good idea
You seem angry that I would not consider Ruth Davidson as being beyond the pale. That's a fairly ridiculous viewpoint and resorting to insults like that doesn't really make your argument more compelling. The Tories under Goldie seemed to be quite competent enough to work with the SNP. Under Davidson they also seem quite capable of consensus politics (in a way SLAB and the Liberals most definately are not).
I voted Yes. I didn't harm independence in any way.
Goldie was good for a laugh and played the favourite Auntie well. She was surrounded by duffers. Davidson whilst a good speaker and reasonably nice sounding person is just her proxy and a London puppet. Listening to her in Holyrood is mind numbing , never any positives but sticks to SNP bad and tries to pretend the Tories care. They are moribund and going nowhere, not known as the nasty party for nnothing. They have nothing whatsoever to offer Scotland. I note you did not challenge my one example of the type of arse they have on their benches. Cameron or any other Tory prime minister will not help Scotland. We need to get a backbone and do it for ourselves , hoping to get crumbs from Cameron does not cut it. They will continue to deny Scotland powers and the end is inevitable.
It was Davidson and not London who led the Tories to be the best offer at Smith. 100% Davidson. She drove that, if it had been here and the SNP it would have been close to FFA. That wasn't what Cameron wanted but she made the call.
Smith offers sweet F all, it is just garbage wrapped up in fancy paper. It changes absolutely nothing , gives absolutely no devolution of powers and will blow up in their stupid unionist faces eventually, if it ever gets anywhere. They cannot even work out what is Scottish income tax , surprise surprise.So Dave let her offer a few crumbs rolled in crap, big deal.
Dair, the Scottish polls consistently get the Tory vote wrong for Holyrood. If the Greens break into double figures they will have vastly exceeded any previous performance, even when Robin Harper (think that was his name) was their far more moderate leader in Scotland.
Other than the ARSE in half an hour and Opinium and YouGov, do we know of any other polls due today?
The Greens are about to benefit from being a "phantom list" when they are not a phantom list. SNP is close to full return on FPTP, in certain Regions, an SNP list vote is wasted. That message is getting out there. Next year expect to hear "SNP Seat, Green List" again and again.
Why is an SNP list vote wasted? In 2011, the SNP won all but two seats in the HIghlands and still picked up an additional three list seats; in the North East, they won a clean sweep and added a list seat on top; and in two other regions they won enough list seats to compensate for each constituency they missed. If any party wins topside of the high-40s on the list vote, the likelihood is that even if it takes every constituency, it'll still win list seats too.
That is why sensible people will be SNP - SNP
If you live in Edinburgh SNP/SNP is a complete waste of a List vote in all possible circumstances. If you live in Mid Scotland or Glasgow, SNP/SNP is a wasted list vote in almost all conceivable outcomes (and the Westminster election will confirm that so there is no risk). In NE and Highlands, it's meh.
A stronger Green composition in Holyrood would be very good for Governance. As well as being pro-Indy they would put forward bills on drug decriminalisation and ending Apartheid which the SNP will not touch with a bargepole.
Apartheid, please? Obviously a metaphor, but for the life of me I can't think what it is.
On topic- Nicola Sturgeon is for me the most formidable politician in the UK. Tenacious, incredibly clear and lucid and able to communicate seamlessly. I think Sturgeon will set the scene over the coming years with these kind of very able women taking the highest jobs in politics because quite simply they are better and, vitally, more credible than their male counterparts.
Lol, well done for revealing your prejudices in the first sentence of your first post.
Not sure how it is "prejudiced" to think that the SNP are a problem for Unionists. It is a statement of fact, isn't it?
It is, but that's not what you wrote.
I can imagine the choral whining on here if someone's first post included 'a solution to the Tory problem in Scotland', or even better, 'a solution to the Unionist problem in Scotland'. .
Because of the wider implications if the SNP (or, in Holyrood, a SNP-Green alliance, however informal) get a substantial majority in Holyrood in 2016 to follow up what polling suggests might happen in 2015.
Interesting piece. I pointed out yesterday that there is a marked difference of approach between Salmond and Sturgeon. Salmond was focussed on independence. He was reluctant to take ideological positions because he recognised that Nationalism
I think that DH is right in that the more capable SNP politicians went to Holyrood, for the other parties they went to Westminster, and that is what has shifted the tectonic plates against Labour and the Lib Dems.
nt.
The Tories did well with Ruth although curiously her main opponent was pushing ideas similar to those I set out. Holyrood has been a godsend to them in some respects because the list system allowed them to get elected. But the party is small and old, a remenent of better times, so Ruth has her work cut out. As I have said I think some rebranding is going to be an important part of the mix. The toxicity of the Tories amongst middle class professionals in Scotland who should be natural supporters is profound and needs to be overcome.
Why do the Conservatives have this problem? You'd think that in any part of the country, there'd be at least 25% or so prepared to vote for a right wing party.
Since Baldwin transformed the party in the 20's the core of the Conservative party has been the small businessman, and the middle class professionals. There are simply not enough upper class people to win an election with a wide franchise.
While we do have a lot of SME's these have evolved since the days of Councillor Roberts in Grantham. The SMEs are often run by ethnic minorities and the middle class professionals often work for what Gove called "the blob". Neither are the natural Tories they once were, though neither are inevitably hostile either.
I saw my first election poster this week. It was a Tory one for Leicester city council for the wards of North and South Evington. All six candidates were Hindus. Times are changing.
That's a general, rather than Scotland-specific problem. Overall, SME owners are still pretty Conservative, although public sector professionals have turned away from them. Outside Scotland, the Tories have managed to grow their working class support (at least until UKIP appeared).
Public sector professionals have turned away from them, educated middle-class graduates under 40 in the private sector have turned away from them, and the working class have turned to UKIP.
You have to ask yourself: how do the Tories expect to cobble together enough votes to win an election?
Smith offers sweet F all, it is just garbage wrapped up in fancy paper. It changes absolutely nothing , gives absolutely no devolution of powers and will blow up in their stupid unionist faces eventually, if it ever gets anywhere. They cannot even work out what is Scottish income tax , surprise surprise.So Dave let her offer a few crumbs rolled in crap, big deal.
Man, read what I wrote (albeit with a typo).
The Tories went into Smith wanting Scotland to have the most devolved powers out of any of the Unionist parties. If it had just been Davidson and the SNP then the outcome would be a Smith which was close to Full Fiscal Autonomy. And that was Davidson which made that decision (and made the policy change to Scottish Conservatives to support this as well).
This isn't even a new thing. Supporting further devolution was one of the first things Davidson did when she took over from Goldie.
Because of the wider implications if the SNP (or, in Holyrood, a SNP-Green alliance, however informal) get a substantial majority in Holyrood in 2016 to follow up what polling suggests might happen in 2015.
There`s enough time to talk about the 2016 Scottish election.
Comments
That said, rebranding and an amicable separation from London is a sensible move and the Progressive Party wouldn't be a bad name. That said, rebranding only goes so far. The Tory Party rebranded about 170 years ago but never lost its original name.
Social liberalism along with economic liberalism can and should go hand in hand.
After Independence, the Tories can become the Progressive Party, offer a long term "offer of Federalism" back into the UK but not being committed to it (along the lines of Peurto Rico's NPP). The Labour Party can divest itself of the New Labour toxin, the Liberals can drop the stupid name and actually become the Liberal Party again.
I genuinely love the irony of this. It is also the only hope of all three of these parties in the long term.
22 minutes 22 seconds
Unless of vourse there are two Scotland's, the one at the top end of Britain and the one in Dair's head where 5 million people subsidise 60 million others by through industrious tax returns in Cumbernauld.
I take you hate Scotland and the Scots ?
That's about 15 seats, roughly on par with the Tories and only a few behind Labour. The ScotGP don't really care about Westminster, they do care about Holyrood and are about to do very, very well (with plenty of SNP support on the list).
I was using a colander as a pinhole projector yesterday, but I think I may have strained my eyes...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11194474/MPs-forced-out-over-expenses-will-stand-in-2015.html
MPs forced out over expenses will stand in 2015
The seven former Labour MPs and two former Lib Dem members will be back on the ballot paper on May 7.
No comment.
The problem is the Milibands of this world tell them it is possible in the hope that it will get him in to office, and people believe him because he claims to give them what they want without them having to exert any undue effort. That is always going to win compared to a party which advocates effort and self-sufficiency even if it provides the means.
@ERSScotland: Did you campaign during #indyref? still politically active? in a political party? Or not? Fill in our survey! http://t.co/gO6N7QoePI
I don't like Scotland's political culture though. In particular the vision of welfarism and living off the backs of other peoples work. The oil boom has destroyed the Scottish work ethic. Why work when you can live for free on a windfall?
The main reason why I think the SNP need a Labour Westminster government is that it provides an attack target, whether that be economic mismanagement or cuts or whatever. By 2016, it'll be nine years since Labour was in power in Holyrood and six since they left in Whitehall; that makes attacking them a lot harder.
On top of that, there would be some Lab-Con movement in the polls on the same basis; probably not much given that Scotland's polling has a very different dynamic but some, all the same. It's true that in 1997, when the Conservatives lost power, there was a swing *to* Labour after the election but they were very different circumstances, where the vast bulk of the recovery from the last recession was already done, and where the Labour leader was exceptionally popular. I would not expect such an unusual situation to occur in 2015 were Miliband to become PM.
The final factor is that putting Labour in power in London is far easier to reconcile with the centre-left narrative Sturgeon wants to develop (and indeed, with what she's already said). Labour will find her far easier to attack (and will be far more motivated to do so), if Salmond and co have just propped up a Tory- or Tory-led government, even if only by sitting on their hands.
What exactly is the point of the Lib Dems?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11486525/Pope-Francis-strips-disgraced-Cardinal-Keith-OBrien-of-privileges-but-not-title.html
I define an ordinary person as someone who doesnt take a particularly strong *party* position on many things, but really just wants the best for themselves, their family and community.
She was plain speaking (not in a UKIP 'plain speaking' = rude to people we dont like way) and honest. She gave across integrity (in a way that Sturgeon also does) and decency, the audience appreciated it.
Five years into a conservative led government, on a Question Time in Glasgow, the Conservative politician is the one who gets the best response from the audience.
I suppose the issue isnt her, its the brand she is representing. I have to wonder about advice suggesting she should over egg her autonomy over london Conservatives. I dont think Jim Murphy has managed to reverse Scottish Labour's problems with his OTT disassociating himself with everything london labour does.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 17th March Projection) :
Con 308 (-2) .. Lab 248 (-2) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 36 (+2) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 18 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - TCTC
Warwickshire North - TCTC
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - Con Hold
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Con Hold
Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain from TCTC
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 17 Mar - Enfield North moves from TCTC to Likely Lab GAIN
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
What is wrong, on a personal or political basis of a single member of the Scottish Conservative Party?
In reality there is nothing wrong with any of them. they hold reasonable and solid views on how to govern and would make a good Scottish Government in a post Independence Scotland.
Thatcher is dead. She isn't relevant. Worse, on May 8th if it wasn't for attitudes like yours Scotland would have the chance of Full Fiscal Autonomy because it would be GUARANTEED by David Cameron as part of a Joint Bill on EVEL.
But the SNP won't be able to accept it, won't even be able to consider it. Because of backward attitudes. Like yours.
Certainly Mr Ashdown is a strong authority on misplaced deposits.
"What exactly is the point of the Lib Dems?"
One of the great unanswered questions up there with 'Is there a God' and 'Can Harry Kane really play football'
Paper anyone.......!
And his party with lost deposits very shortly
I remain to be convinced by the Greens. They've had flashes in the pan before; it's all based on not being someone else and their politicians, when put under the spotlight, are frequently found to be wanting, if not downright loony. Let's see how long those members last.
I hope it occured to him that; given the percieved - up to now - close call between UKIP and Tory was likely to see Labour voters tactically vote Tory; it is very much in UKIPs interests to big up the Labour candidates chances to an acquaintance who might well go back to Bedford and splash the Labour canditates good progress all over his very widely read blog, so deterring Thanet South Labour voters from tactical voting when the media pick up on it. Looks to me like it might be a clever move by the Kippers at OGHs expense.
What exactly is the point of the Lib Dems?
The Libdems are in a mess. They don't seem to be able to define themselves by what they are or what they aren't. Lord Steel seems to be saying "what are we about? Er....hang on a bit, we'll have a think and let you know. But please, still vote for us in the meantime...."
Er, right.....
Such a referendum would inevitably have to be focussed much more on economic reality than the independence referendum, and such a debate would put it firmly on the strong ground of the Unionist argument. Even better in current circumstances with the Oil price doing what it is. It would be a lot harder for the SNP to use emotional arguments to make their case.
And if such a referendum decisively rejected the SNP position then it would implicitly destroy the case for Independence. The SNP would have nowhere to go.
(and even if, although I think very unlikely, the Scots did vote for it, the consequences would not be irreversible, albeit any failure of the new settlement would allow a proper re-evaluation of the distribution of resources within the UK. And if they voted yes, and it actually succeeded, well good luck to them).
Edited extra bit: welcome to pb.com.
I expect your ideas include bringing back poors house and getting poor children up chimneys.
It's amazing what can change in a short time period. The welfare changes from 2008/9 onwards have completely changed this notion of 'lifestyle choice', sometimes its been really hard, some people who had completely got into the mindset that either they were to ill to work, or that work was for other people, having to realise that if you can work, you must do so.
But that realisation has happened. The sheer number of benefits sanctions is testament to an attitude from some people that there are no rules. For those of us who work there are certain rules.
1) Don't be late. If you are late, you need a good reason, and you need to tell your boss you are running late, and dont make a habit of it.
2) If you have an emergency so you cant make your shift, you tell your company as soon as you know. They are relying on you. You do not under any circumstances just not 'turn up'.
3) If your company asks you to do a series of tasks, as part of your job, you do them. If you dont do them, there will be consequences.
4) The organisation you work for are not interested in why you cant do things, but will normally be flexible if you are flexible back. But you must remember, you fit your world around your job, not your job around your world.
All this seems common sense. But believe it or not, such obvious ways to behave are alien to some people. They think it is acceptable to not keep appointments, to be repeatedly late, and to not bother doing what is expected of them. And why should they? There was a situation (especially if you had children), that there wasnt really any reward/punishment for co-operating with the DWP. It didnt matter, if you went from one benefit onto another, you would still get your money.
Not any more, and some people are shocked by it. It must be a shock to go to the cashpoint to find out you havent been 'paid' (as they call it).
That albatross of hypocrisy around their necks keeps flapping its outsized wings.... I can't think of a single Labour attack line that doesn't have a one or two word rebuttal to send their shills scuttling back to the deep bunker...
If every SNP list vote was a Green list vote, then Holyrood would have 75% or so pro-Independence members and the Greens would be the official opposition, the Liberals wouldn't exist and the Tories and Labour would be small rumps.
My personal opinion is that losing one or two SNP list seats is acceptable to replace a dozen SLAB and 4 or 5 Tories with Greens. Other opinions such as Mr Kelly do not agree.
Regardless of the overall picture, I do not believe the SNP will hit 52%-55% and get an additional List member after a clean sweep in Glasgow. Therefore I will do my bit to boost the Green vote so they get a second seat on the List (at the expense of either Ms Davidson or a Labourite).
Her defence of 'reappropriating EU funds to a better cause' was particularly nauseating but wasn't a similar argument put forward by their party leader when he had issues with his expenses?
CRAP - Considered Results Anally Projected.
People like Dair or myself will never vote Tory under current circumstances. I am a right wing hang em and flog em type but with a heart for people with real misfortunes. Plenty like me in Scotland if Tories could find a heart.
You are deluded if you think Cameron will ever give Scotland any powers.
It is arses like you that cost us independence last September.
Old pantsdown , you can but laugh
You seem angry that I would not consider Ruth Davidson as being beyond the pale. That's a fairly ridiculous viewpoint and resorting to insults like that doesn't really make your argument more compelling. The Tories under Goldie seemed to be quite competent enough to work with the SNP. Under Davidson they also seem quite capable of consensus politics (in a way SLAB and the Liberals most definately are not).
I voted Yes. I didn't harm independence in any way.
I expect they'd be sanctioned for going to the job centre instead of the interview too. The system is Kafkaesque.
A stronger Green composition in Holyrood would be very good for Governance. As well as being pro-Indy they would put forward bills on drug decriminalisation and ending Apartheid which the SNP will not touch with a bargepole.
We should be spending our own money , there is plenty of it , wisely and building a decent country rather than being an ignored corner of a former great country.
As an aside, I think that if such split voting became the norm, it would undermine the legitimacy of AMS as a system as the results would be widely seen as unfair.
on-topic - avoid Scottish threads, they're bad for your health.
off-topic
Can't find a single article with BBC on-line regarding the secrete Labour hedge fund donor.
With so many news papers covering it, one would have thought Aunty would have her own story to tell, especially as Ed tried his hardest to keep it under wraps.
They are moribund and going nowhere, not known as the nasty party for nnothing. They have nothing whatsoever to offer Scotland. I note you did not challenge my one example of the type of arse they have on their benches.
Cameron or any other Tory prime minister will not help Scotland. We need to get a backbone and do it for ourselves , hoping to get crumbs from Cameron does not cut it.
They will continue to deny Scotland powers and the end is inevitable.
One can argue about whether these perceptions are right. But if people have them, it's quite a legitimate choice either way.
(Apologies to David for being 100% O/T - interesting article, but I don't know enough about Scottish politics to comment.)
Ah ha- this is my first sighting of Jack's ARSE for years. I thought the crumpled, saggy, wrinkled, specimen was put out of public sight after it's spectacular successes at the US elections.
For those pouring scorn on Jack's ARSE, beware, it has regularly been the most accurate predictor of political events for years, US elections, mayoral elections, by elections. But like anything else in life, perhaps it has finally been put into work one election too far, or there again perhaps not. Perhaps Jack's ARSE is impregnable.
It seems the Lib Dems are happier as outsiders, which is fine, except their rhetoric remains (apart from David Steel) that they want to be partners in Government.
Schizophrenia is not a good electoral look.
https://twitter.com/ScoBigVoice/status/578972166907125760
You're right about it being a flaw of AMS. Arguably it is also a strength as you can actually vote for a policy between parties (in this case Independence). But AMS would likely be better served with a "carried" list vote where your party choice in the candidate vote carried over for the PR portion.
I'm one of those, under 40, and so are the vast majority of my friends. But I'd say barely 25% of my friends (if that) are centre-right to right-wing. If I post something vaguely Tory on Facebook, for instance, left-wing critiques and comments pour in like a meteor shower. I then might get a sympathetic email or two from a couple of friends afterwards on yahoo mail.
To the professional under 40s, being right-wing is something consenting adults do in private.
I also note Mr Herdson spotted (in his comment) the dangerously ambiguous nature of 'Unionist' in Scotland, certainly in the West Central belt. Very well spotted.
The 2016 Holyrood vote of SNP/SNP or SNP/Green is plainly going to make an interesting thread which I for one would find very informative - but nearer the time ...
*not intended to refer to Mr Icke's theory ...
The SNP are not a problem. They are a democratic outlet.
They cannot even work out what is Scottish income tax , surprise surprise.So Dave let her offer a few crumbs rolled in crap, big deal.
I can imagine the choral whining on here if someone's first post included 'a solution to the Tory problem in Scotland', or even better, 'a solution to the Unionist problem in Scotland'. .
You have to ask yourself: how do the Tories expect to cobble together enough votes to win an election?
The Tories went into Smith wanting Scotland to have the most devolved powers out of any of the Unionist parties. If it had just been Davidson and the SNP then the outcome would be a Smith which was close to Full Fiscal Autonomy. And that was Davidson which made that decision (and made the policy change to Scottish Conservatives to support this as well).
This isn't even a new thing. Supporting further devolution was one of the first things Davidson did when she took over from Goldie.
The 2015 general election though is imminent.