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.
Er, I seem to remember her - in her own words, more or less - drawing a line in the sand to stop further devolution.
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?
Keep throwing money at pensioners seems to be their game plan
"Unite, one of Britain's biggest unions, has said that it is prepared to carry out illegal strikes if the Conservatives win the General Election."
Over to you EdM.......
quite, and Interesting that no other leftie wishes to comment on the military wing of the Labour Party attempting to overthrow by force a democratically elected government if they don't like the result whatever voting system is in use. Keep in mind that nearly one third of potential Labour MPs will be in the pay of or connected to Unison.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
And not forgetting the propogander ministry of the Labour Party doing the same thing for communications. Can anyone .....anyone at all seriously believe that if this week this was a Tory involved it would not be the top story? If you do you are completely deluded.
The best post this morning though was Dairs though where it was pointed out the "the English as always just want lots of free stuff from the Scots". Well It's a view I suppose.....
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.
Dream on , you may be a Davidson fan boy but get real.
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.
The under 40's are Blair's Children rather than Thatcher's Children which you might expect to see in the 40-50's. Or Health's Children in the generation above that (note the number of One Nation Wets in that age band). The political age you become politically aware in helps to shape your beliefs.
@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.
In the hundreds of thousands of sanctions there will be some that arent correct or unjust. But this isnt routine. And dont always believe the 'i had to take my daughter to the hospital' stories, they are often just not true. When my wife was on JSA (contributions based) the DWP expected certain things from her. And they were totally flexible. As long as she told them beforehand. She had an interview in edinburgh, on the day when she had a DWP appointment, we phoned up and they said fine, come in on the Wednesday instead. People just lie straight forward about it. They dont attend, dont tell anyone and then woner why they get sanctioned.
I have some work on this afternoon, what do you think the consequnces would be if i just didnt turn up? I wouldnt get paid. Nor should i expect to get paid.
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.
Thank you for what any unbiased commentator would assess as the leading contender for the "PB Post of the Year".
May I also contend that it's a pleasure to see you posting on a somewhat more regular basis, especially in that style.
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.
The 2015 general election though is imminent.
We can talk about what we want , it is highly relevant to the 2015 election , just not the usual Kipper whinging by Tories on here.
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.
Er, I seem to remember her - in her own words, more or less - drawing a line in the sand to stop further devolution.
LOL, that got washed away quick, Dair must have missed that one.
@Nick Palmer- Hi Nick- I'll be up for a Broxtowe election event. I have some friends who live locally that I could try and persuade to help with the canvassing too. Sorry not to reply yesterday, but I had to clear it with the boss. Let me know prospective dates.
how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike
No need to get defensive mate.Free speech also includes valid criticism when warranted.
Of course it does , it was meant to be funny in a Scottish way. Expectation was you would respond in kind with some suitable banter/insult. Sets you up for a good day. Too sombre on here at times
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.
Thank you for what any unbiased commentator would assess as the leading contender for the "PB Post of the Year".
May I also contend that it's a pleasure to see you posting on a somewhat more regular basis, especially in that style.
Survation. (@Survation) 21/03/2015 09:44 NEW #ge2015 poll out tonight for MOS. Earlier @DamianSurvation spoke to @toryboypierce@LBC on polls vs the budget: soundcloud.com/survation/dami…
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.
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?
Keep throwing money at pensioners seems to be their game plan
Yes. Enough to hold 30-31% perhaps. Not sure it's enough for 36-38% range to win.
It also makes it even harder to convince the under 40s the Tories are on their side.
SMukesh: "How is this thread relevant to the 2015 election?"
malcolmg: "how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike"
The thread is relevant to the 2015 election by virtue of the final sentence. The Scottish seats make up about a third of the battleground seats in the country for the election (i.e. those which may change hands), and the local dynamics there are therefore of interest.
Malcolm - all viewpoints are relevant. Do not try to hound posters away. It's not as if Scots nationalists have always posted on topic.
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.
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?
Keep throwing money at pensioners seems to be their game plan
Yes. Enough to hold 30-31% perhaps. Not sure it's enough for 36-38% range to win.
It also makes it even harder to convince the under 40s the Tories are on their side.
Agree , they don't seem too good at it, especially when up against a duff Labour team.
how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike
No need to get defensive mate.Free speech also includes valid criticism when warranted.
Of course it does , it was meant to be funny in a Scottish way. Expectation was you would respond in kind with some suitable banter/insult. Sets you up for a good day. Too sombre on here at times
Aah,Scottish humour.Is that where you have to search for the joke?
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
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.
The decline of the Scottish Conservatives began in 1959 when they lost four seats to Labour despite making big gains in England and Wales.
SMukesh: "How is this thread relevant to the 2015 election?"
malcolmg: "how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike"
The thread is relevant to the 2015 election by virtue of the final sentence. The Scottish seats make up about a third of the battleground seats in the country for the election (i.e. those which may change hands), and the local dynamics there are therefore of interest.
Malcolm - all viewpoints are relevant. Do not try to hound posters away. It's not as if Scots nationalists have always posted on topic.
David, get a life and a sense of humour. Why are so many people on here so fragile at receiving comments but arses when doling it out. I have already explained to SMUKesh it was meant to be banter / humour. I expect he is a big boy and does not need you championing him. Go look at some of the real nasty insulting arseholes on here and ask them to shape up.
how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike
No need to get defensive mate.Free speech also includes valid criticism when warranted.
Of course it does , it was meant to be funny in a Scottish way. Expectation was you would respond in kind with some suitable banter/insult. Sets you up for a good day. Too sombre on here at times
Aah,Scottish humour.Is that where you have to search for the joke?
Like me,David seems to have missed the joke too.
I could lie and say the humour is disguised to make it hard for you, rather than it being dire.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
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.
The decline of the Scottish Conservatives began in 1959 when they lost four seats to Labour despite making big gains in England and Wales.
That's true but the 1950s was always something of a false peak, occasioned as much by the collapse of the Liberals (who at the time were far closer to the Tories than to Labour), as by a pro-Con swing. As that unwound and the Liberals recovered, the Conservative/Unionist vote inevitably suffered.
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.
The under 40's are Blair's Children rather than Thatcher's Children which you might expect to see in the 40-50's. Or Health's Children in the generation above that (note the number of One Nation Wets in that age band). The political age you become politically aware in helps to shape your beliefs.
It's funny though. I've always considered myself one of Thatcher's children.
"Contemptible weasel Ed Miliband today confessed to rancid hypocrisy shortly before resigning and entering self-imposed exile"?
On an entirely serious note, I'm thinking of writing a mini-story about Sir Edric having a holiday in the UK ahead of the General Election and being bemused at the situation. The biggest problem is trying to have him express an equal degree of contempt for the three main leaders. Hard to get the balance precisely right.
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
@Holbornlolz "What shall I do this morning? I know, pick a fight with the bloke who drives a tank to the BBC with 1M signatures. During my re-election"
"Contemptible weasel Ed Miliband today confessed to rancid hypocrisy shortly before resigning and entering self-imposed exile"?
On an entirely serious note, I'm thinking of writing a mini-story about Sir Edric having a holiday in the UK ahead of the General Election and being bemused at the situation. The biggest problem is trying to have him express an equal degree of contempt for the three main leaders. Hard to get the balance precisely right.
He might well hold the three main leaders in contempt but what will he think of Clegg?
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Not so. 'Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minisiter' is not a projection capable of being narrowed down. JackW, who is not a pollster as far as I know, has placed his reputation fairly and squarely on the line.
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
Yep, the SNP will clean up in Scotland. Labour deserves everything it is going to get. And the same thing will happen next year too in the Scottish elections. However, Labour slipping into third place is not that likely. Although its vote has collapsed, it does still seem to have about 25% support. That's a big ask for the Tories.
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
That sounds right.
And leads to the question of how the SNP could screw up badly in Holyrood.
With macroeconomics and foreign policy still controlled from London that only leaves a massive corruption scandal as a possibility.
Mr. M, I almost wrote 'poor Clegg'. Then I remembered he's a pro-euro fool who's deliberating trying to balkanise England (cf Cornwall) to avoid an English Parliament.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
They could start with this link from the Independent:
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
This post is all very tortuous stuff. How can you say the last 5 years have been so good 'referendum apart' when their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost? Furthermore the whole economic basis for an independent Scotland has been shot to pieces
The simple truth is the SNP are morphing into far left socialists. The far left in Scotland have determined they do not need Labour to be able to pursue far left policies. Under devolution Scottish voters can vote for who they want where they want when they want. Its their choice and they have to decide what they think is best. What Scottish MPs cannot do or should not be able to is vote on English only matters when they themselves cannot vote on those same issues for their own constituencies.
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Deary me how very little you know of my ARSE.
Any student of my fine organ will know it is not a "pollster" and does not produce a nowcast but a projection for May 7th.
Further any close historical inspection of the contents of my ARSE would indicate to even the most brain addled dullard that it has enjoyed great stability in its various projections since 2005.
You together with other ARSE deniers will be proved spectacularly wrong as they have been in the past.
At some stage the SNP will have a decision to make. Now that it is completely clear their fiscal and economic case for Scottish independence no longer exists, will the SNP continue to be a nationalist party focused on breaking up the UK first and foremost, or will it be a nationalist party whose priority is to govern Scotland? If it chooses the latter course, the chances are that it will spend a very long time in power in Holyrood and will return a large number of MPs to Westminster for GEs to come. If it chooses the former, that is far less likely.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
They could start with this link from the Independent:
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
The SNP has achieved a paradigm shift in Scottish politics. The name of the game is no longer SLAB or anti-Tory but rather Unionist versus Nationalist. With the Unionist vote split between at least three parties and the Nationalists grouped around just one, means that the SNP will be dominant. Will the Unionists recognise this and act accordingly?
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Not so. 'Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minisiter' is not a projection capable of being narrowed down. JackW, who is not a pollster as far as I know, has placed his reputation fairly and squarely on the line.
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
If Scotland ever becomes a high migration destination that may change, Malcolm - just as parts of England have been dramatically altered by people coming in from outside.
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Deary me how very little you know of my ARSE.
Any student of my fine organ will know it is not a "pollster" and does not produce a nowcast but a projection for May 7th.
Further any close historical inspection of the contents of my ARSE would indicate to even the most brain addled dullard that it has enjoyed great stability in its various projections since 2005.
You together with other ARSE deniers will be proved spectacularly wrong as they have been in the past.
At the moment,your forecast is showing worse results for Lab and better for Con than most or all of the academic forecasts.
And stability means your forecast near the 7th May should indicate about 250 seats for Lab and 310 seats for Con.I`ll wait to see what happens.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
Labour leadership faces scrutiny over attempt to cover up donation from leading hedge fund manager
Labour accused of hypocrisy over donation revelation
There are plenty of ways of covering the story. I don't for one moment believe that the BBC News team would find any difficulty in finding an angle if the Conservatives were found accepting donations from a sector they had recently been trashing all over the media.
There is nothing wrong with accepting a legitimate political donation. There is plenty wrong with denouncing people for accepting donations from one particular group and then being found to have have accepted over £600k from a member of that group.
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
Scots can vote how they like. But there seems little point in voting for a party that can neither form part of a Westminster government nor opposition. The SNP have just lost an independence referendum, the economic terms have turned against independence - they are no nearer now working out a central bank a currency membership of the EU Euro or anything. Swapping Labour/LD MPs in Westminster for SNP ones makes a left of centre government less not more likely.
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
The SNP has achieved a paradigm shift in Scottish politics. The name of the game is no longer SLAB or anti-Tory but rather Unionist versus Nationalist. With the Unionist vote split between at least three parties and the Nationalists grouped around just one, means that the SNP will be dominant. Will the Unionists recognise this and act accordingly?
How could a single Unionist party form a government in Scotland? On the other hand, if you are on the centre left in Scotland it's perfectly rational to vote SNP, even if you would vote No in a referendum, because it's the surest way you will get a centre left government. That only changes if the SNP decides that pushing for separation is the be all and end all, which it is unlikely to do for a while, at least, given the collapse of its economic and fiscal case.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
They could start with this link from the Independent:
The website links directly to the Independent story. I have also heard it covered on the BBC radio news this morning.
The story is not covered on the main UK or Politics page - the only reference is indirectly on the Papers section at the bottom of the News page. Clearly Radio 4 is a bastion of even-handedness not matched remotely by the web-site.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
Labour leadership faces scrutiny over attempt to cover up donation from leading hedge fund manager
Labour accused of hypocrisy over donation revelation
There are plenty of ways of covering the story. I don't for one moment believe that the BBC News team would find any difficulty in finding an angle if the Conservatives were found accepting donations from a sector they had recently been trashing all over the media.
There is nothing wrong with accepting a legitimate political donation. There is plenty wrong with denouncing people for accepting donations from one particular group and then being found to have have accepted over £600k from a member of that group.
That's pretty much how I heard it reported on the radio news just now. It was not the main story, but it isn't on Sky or ITN either.
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Deary me how very little you know of my ARSE.
Any student of my fine organ will know it is not a "pollster" and does not produce a nowcast but a projection for May 7th.
Further any close historical inspection of the contents of my ARSE would indicate to even the most brain addled dullard that it has enjoyed great stability in its various projections since 2005.
You together with other ARSE deniers will be proved spectacularly wrong as they have been in the past.
Jacks ARSE and MacARSE are noted for their regularity and consistency. Not for him the incontinence of the good Lord!
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
They could start with this link from the Independent:
The website links directly to the Independent story. I have also heard it covered on the BBC radio news this morning.
The story is not covered on the main UK or Politics page - the only reference is indirectly on the Papers section at the bottom of the News page. Clearly Radio 4 is a bastion of even-handedness not matched remotely by the web-site.
Not having heard the Radio 4 coverage, I would be interested to know whether it was part of the 'review of the papers' section or actually covered as a story in and of itself.
But it should be on the BBC news website - it really should. If David Steel's comments about future LD direction are worthy of a story, so is this.
SMukesh: "How is this thread relevant to the 2015 election?"
malcolmg: "how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike"
The thread is relevant to the 2015 election by virtue of the final sentence. The Scottish seats make up about a third of the battleground seats in the country for the election (i.e. those which may change hands), and the local dynamics there are therefore of interest.
Malcolm - all viewpoints are relevant. Do not try to hound posters away. It's not as if Scots nationalists have always posted on topic.
David, get a life and a sense of humour. Why are so many people on here so fragile at receiving comments but arses when doling it out. I have already explained to SMUKesh it was meant to be banter / humour. I expect he is a big boy and does not need you championing him. Go look at some of the real nasty insulting arseholes on here and ask them to shape up.
Go take a hike yourself turnip head. ha ha ha - you see my sense of humour?
I agree the BBC website should have covered this non-story straight from the Lynton Crosby stable of politics.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
This is not a story of Lynton Crosby's making. This is all down to the Miliband machine. They condemned the Tories for accepting money from Hedge Fund Managers whilst at the same time accepting £600k from one. That is a mess entirely of Labour's own making. They didn't need any help from outside.
@SMukesh Negative stories and "core themes" were what Lynton's reputation for winning elections are based on. It might work in a British setting, but there seems to be some doubt amongst analysts on both the left and right
I agree the BBC website should have covered this non-story straight from the Lynton Crosby stable of politics.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
This is not a story of Lynton Crosby's making. This is all down to the Miliband machine. They condemned the Tories for accepting money from Hedge Fund Managers whilst at the same time accepting £600k from one. That is a mess entirely of Labour's own making. They didn't need any help from outside.
Actually I would agree that Miliband should have avoided that reference at PMQ`s if Labour received funding from hedge funds.
But if I was a Tory,I would also be wary of hedge funds and party funding becoming an issue this close to the general election as the Tories are on the wrong side of public opinion there.
This post is all very tortuous stuff. How can you say the last 5 years have been so good 'referendum apart' when their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost? Furthermore the whole economic basis for an independent Scotland has been shot to pieces
...
To get a referendum, first of all you have to be in a position to demand one. Winning the 2011 election outright put them in that position. By the looks of it, they are on course to achieve an epic landslide in May, possibly on a scale never before seen by any party in Scotland (as far as I can tell, the record in the democratic era is 1880, with the Liberals won 52 out of 58 seats). They are certain to gain more powers devolution and are likely to be returned for another 4/5 year term, possibly with another outright majority. The loss of the referendum was undoubtedly a setback but has to be taken in the context of everything else. In addition, the mere fact that the referendum took place established a precedent that will be useful to them in the future.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that "their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost". It's no longer their whole purpose, though it remains their primary one. They've morphed from a single-issue party to a party of government and - as my post points out - are now developing that further by establishing a firm position in the centre of the Scottish ideological spectrum. I'd say that was a fairly significant development.
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.
And what did you find in room 101? A hedge fund manager - with a check book?
Btw, am saving up all these *ARSE* predictions to throw at someone when Con end up getting less seats than Lab.
You must have one huge container to even attempt to hold a fraction of that effluent
:-) Like most pollsters,Jack narrows it down near polling day and pretends that he was right all along.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
Deary me how very little you know of my ARSE.
Any student of my fine organ will know it is not a "pollster" and does not produce a nowcast but a projection for May 7th.
Further any close historical inspection of the contents of my ARSE would indicate to even the most brain addled dullard that it has enjoyed great stability in its various projections since 2005.
You together with other ARSE deniers will be proved spectacularly wrong as they have been in the past.
At the moment,your forecast is showing worse results for Lab and better for Con than most or all of the academic forecasts.
And stability means your forecast near the 7th May should indicate about 250 seats for Lab and 310 seats for Con.I`ll wait to see what happens.
Indeed so.
However I minded to recall that since 2005 most "academic forecasts" in elections both here and in the US have failed to show the rounded accuracy of my ARSE.
Only a black swan event such as David Cameron being found in flagrante delicto with a large dark feathered bird owned by HM the Queen is likely to alter the essential dynamics of my vastly understated and humble ARSE.
If Jacks Arse is correct Tory + Libdem would have a comfortable majority, so I wouldn't take too much notice of Steel, especially as most of the remaining Libdem seats will be in areas where Labour are a poor third or even fourth.
I suspect Laws might be a good bet for next leader if Clegg loses his seat, otherwise I suspect it is five more years of the Clegg and Cameron show.
The SNP has achieved a paradigm shift in Scottish politics. The name of the game is no longer SLAB or anti-Tory but rather Unionist versus Nationalist. With the Unionist vote split between at least three parties and the Nationalists grouped around just one, means that the SNP will be dominant. Will the Unionists recognise this and act accordingly?
There's a misunderstanding in this oft-returned-to meme. The referendum turned 45% of its voters into (for want of a better word) Nationalists; the other 55% were and are not all committed Unionists. Three years ago I'd have estimated the 'Indy for better or worse' core as 20-25%, the 'Union for better or worse' core as 30-35%; now the former is above 40% but the latter still below. The remaining 15-25% of No voters are not dyed in the wool Unionists, nor will they choose a party just because it brands itself Unionist, in fact many would be put off.
If the three Unionist parties want to target the core Unionist vote at the expense of the rest, I'm sure the SNP would be ecstatic.
BBC News website does not appear to be covering the story about Ed's Hedge Fund Manager mate and his donation. Just saying.
They still appear to have forgotten to post their story about that. Yet found space for some LD stories - with David Steel and the newly resigned peer having plenty of coverage.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
How do you think they should report the story?
There are a number of ways the BBC could report this story, but the fact remains that it should be reported - on their web site, as a story in its self and not a tag piece in the paper round up.
This is how SKY are reporting the story, the Independent has a different version.
"Ed Miliband is facing embarrassment after it emerged one of the Labour Party's largest donors is a hedge fund manager.
It has been disclosed that a "mystery" donor who has given the party nearly £600,000 is Martin Taylor, who describes himself as "a born and bred Londoner, who also happens to be a hedge fund manager".
The revelation will be particularly awkward for Mr Miliband, who routinely criticises the Conservatives over their reliance on funding from hedge fund mangers and businessmen.
Last month during a heated exchange in the Commons Mr Miliband dubbed the Tories "the party of Mayfair hedge funds and Monaco tax avoiders".
Electoral Commission records show Mr Taylor has made eight donations, totaling £591,000, to Labour since 2012, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism."
I agree the BBC website should have covered this non-story straight from the Lynton Crosby stable of politics.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
This is not a story of Lynton Crosby's making. This is all down to the Miliband machine. They condemned the Tories for accepting money from Hedge Fund Managers whilst at the same time accepting £600k from one. That is a mess entirely of Labour's own making. They didn't need any help from outside.
Actually I would agree that Miliband should have avoided that reference at PMQ`s if Labour received funding from hedge funds.
But if I was a Tory,I would also be wary of hedge funds and party funding becoming an issue this close to the general election as the Tories are on the wrong side of public opinion there.
The Tory relationship to big business - particularly in the financial sector - is already so well-known as to be unlikely to be of any great interest or shift any votes. It is already factored in.
Labour's hypocrisy on this topic is a new factor - and if it were being reported widely (which may or may not yet happen), it would have an effect. It feeds into the idea that Miliband says one thing and does another.
No hedge fund money - that is bad - except when I am accepting it and meeting the donor
No tax avoidance - that is bad - except when my family has set up a deed of variation to limit our personal liabilities
Most top-level political systems if left unassaulted by external shocks will settle down into two main opposing camps.
I don't think this will hold here, because you've got a Scottish dimension and a UK dimension. If there was no UK dimension then the opposition to the SNP would coalesce or the SNP would schism until you had two main parties. But as it is there's enough differentiation at the UK end between Con, Lab and even Lib to sustain their independent brands, without one of them necessarily forming an overwhelmingly dominant opposition.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
Scots can vote how they like. But there seems little point in voting for a party that can neither form part of a Westminster government nor opposition. The SNP have just lost an independence referendum, the economic terms have turned against independence - they are no nearer now working out a central bank a currency membership of the EU Euro or anything. Swapping Labour/LD MPs in Westminster for SNP ones makes a left of centre government less not more likely.
Sure there's a point, you get an MP from a party you like. Not to mention that sometimes they'll hold the balance of power, which they'll leverage to get you better stuff.
And what did I say...The BBC would cover Miliband hypocrisy in the same way it covers Mirror phone hacking.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
The SNP has achieved a paradigm shift in Scottish politics. The name of the game is no longer SLAB or anti-Tory but rather Unionist versus Nationalist. With the Unionist vote split between at least three parties and the Nationalists grouped around just one, means that the SNP will be dominant. Will the Unionists recognise this and act accordingly?
There's a misunderstanding in this oft-returned-to meme. The referendum turned 45% of its voters into (for want of a better word) Nationalists; the other 55% were and are not all committed Unionists. Three years ago I'd have estimated the 'Indy for better or worse' core as 20-25%, the 'Union for better or worse' core as 30-35%; now the former is above 40% but the latter still below. The remaining 15-25% of No voters are not dyed in the wool Unionists, nor will they choose a party just because it brands itself Unionist, in fact many would be put off.
If the three Unionist parties want to target the core Unionist vote at the expense of the rest, I'm sure the SNP would be ecstatic.
If Indy for better or worse is now above 40% does that mean that the SNP will start to tell the truth about an independent Scotland's fiscal position, EU membership and currency? I guess the acknowledgement of the massive shortfall in oil income compared to forecast is a possible start of that process. But, if it is, how long can the SNP sustain its position on full fiscal autonomy without conceding that this will lead to huge cuts in public services?
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
If Scotland ever becomes a high migration destination that may change, Malcolm - just as parts of England have been dramatically altered by people coming in from outside.
It's not so much whether they are English (by birth) or rUK but whether they are Tory-voting retirees buying their own country cottages or not. Very important confounding correlation.
If Jacks Arse is correct Tory + Libdem would have a comfortable majority, so I wouldn't take too much notice of Steel, especially as most of the remaining Libdem seats will be in areas where Labour are a poor third or even fourth.
I suspect Laws might be a good bet for next leader if Clegg loses his seat, otherwise I suspect it is five more years of the Clegg and Cameron show.
Given appropriate numbers Davis Steel's contention of Supply & Confidence in contrast to a viable formal coalition is most odd to my mind.
It was his position during the lamentable Lib/Lab pact prior to the 79 election where the Liberals got a deal of the blame for very little gain. A formal coalition provides essential long term stability and the prospect of enacting some manifesto pledges and influencing policy across government.
And what did I say...The BBC would cover Miliband hypocrisy in the same way it covers Mirror phone hacking.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
Re Gazza - that sounds plausible as a big factor for him. I read his autobiog a decade ago [ghosted by Hunter Davies IIRC] and it's full of mistrust as terrible things kept being leaked to the press, he couldn't find out who'd done it and felt betrayed.
And what did I say...The BBC would cover Miliband hypocrisy in the same way it covers Mirror phone hacking.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
I agree the BBC website should have covered this non-story straight from the Lynton Crosby stable of politics.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
This is not a story of Lynton Crosby's making. This is all down to the Miliband machine. They condemned the Tories for accepting money from Hedge Fund Managers whilst at the same time accepting £600k from one. That is a mess entirely of Labour's own making. They didn't need any help from outside.
Actually I would agree that Miliband should have avoided that reference at PMQ`s if Labour received funding from hedge funds.
But if I was a Tory,I would also be wary of hedge funds and party funding becoming an issue this close to the general election as the Tories are on the wrong side of public opinion there.
The Tory relationship to big business - particularly in the financial sector - is already so well-known as to be unlikely to be of any great interest or shift any votes. It is already factored in.
Labour's hypocrisy on this topic is a new factor - and if it were being reported widely (which may or may not yet happen), it would have an effect. It feeds into the idea that Miliband says one thing and does another.
No hedge fund money - that is bad - except when I am accepting it and meeting the donor
No tax avoidance - that is bad - except when my family has set up a deed of variation to limit our personal liabilities
The charge of hypocrisy is one that will stick
I fear that's backwards, as unfair as it seems.
Once established, things which confirm a person's existing understanding ring truer than things which contradict it.
I agree the BBC website should have covered this non-story straight from the Lynton Crosby stable of politics.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
This is not a story of Lynton Crosby's making. This is all down to the Miliband machine. They condemned the Tories for accepting money from Hedge Fund Managers whilst at the same time accepting £600k from one. That is a mess entirely of Labour's own making. They didn't need any help from outside.
Actually I would agree that Miliband should have avoided that reference at PMQ`s if Labour received funding from hedge funds.
But if I was a Tory,I would also be wary of hedge funds and party funding becoming an issue this close to the general election as the Tories are on the wrong side of public opinion there.
The Tory relationship to big business - particularly in the financial sector - is already so well-known as to be unlikely to be of any great interest or shift any votes. It is already factored in.
Labour's hypocrisy on this topic is a new factor - and if it were being reported widely (which may or may not yet happen), it would have an effect. It feeds into the idea that Miliband says one thing and does another.
No hedge fund money - that is bad - except when I am accepting it and meeting the donor
No tax avoidance - that is bad - except when my family has set up a deed of variation to limit our personal liabilities
The charge of hypocrisy is one that will stick
I fear that's backwards, as unfair as it seems.
Once established, things which confirm a person's existing understanding ring truer than things which contradict it.
This post is all very tortuous stuff. How can you say the last 5 years have been so good 'referendum apart' when their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost? Furthermore the whole economic basis for an independent Scotland has been shot to pieces
...
To get a referendum, first of all you have to be in a position to demand one. Winning the 2011 election outright put them in that position. ... In addition, the mere fact that the referendum took place established a precedent that will be useful to them in the future.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that "their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost". It's no longer their whole purpose, though it remains their primary one. They've morphed from a single-issue party to a party of government and - as my post points out - are now developing that further by establishing a firm position in the centre of the Scottish ideological spectrum. I'd say that was a fairly significant development.
Great for the SNP. Let them do what they can in the Holyrood parliament. And face the consequences. But having 40+ MPs on Westminster is not very influential. If they seek to influence Labour with both far left policies and with powers over England then that will not help Labour gain seats in England and would make their influence counter productive to whatever end they would seek. And consider this. The SNP have hegemony in Scotland and with devolution they are immune from any wider downside which their votes in Westminster may bring about for everybody else. So what benefit is there to any other party in being allied with them? Which ever way scottish voters look at it - if they want left wing policies in Westminster they should vote labour. If they want centre right policies in Scotland and Westminster they should vote Conservative. The only point to voting SNP is if they want independence - a notion that has been rejected nationally and is now broken backed economically. The Scottish electorate are of course as free as any anywhere to be as illogical as they please.
If Jacks Arse is correct Tory + Libdem would have a comfortable majority, so I wouldn't take too much notice of Steel, especially as most of the remaining Libdem seats will be in areas where Labour are a poor third or even fourth.
I suspect Laws might be a good bet for next leader if Clegg loses his seat, otherwise I suspect it is five more years of the Clegg and Cameron show.
If Clegg survives and Con + Ld have a sufficient overall majority then I can see the coalition continuing. Otherwise it's EICIPM.
@Holbornlolz "What shall I do this morning? I know, pick a fight with the bloke who drives a tank to the BBC with 1M signatures. During my re-election"
@Holbornlolz "What shall I do this morning? I know, pick a fight with the bloke who drives a tank to the BBC with 1M signatures. During my re-election"
@Holbornlolz "What shall I do this morning? I know, pick a fight with the bloke who drives a tank to the BBC with 1M signatures. During my re-election"
Great spat on twitter twixt Emily Thornberry and Guido Fawkes..writs about to fly..I think Guido is ahead on points.
What I find weird about this is and I have to admit I haven't followed the story entirely - where the hell does someone get a tank from?
Army surplus - honestly - to begin with: then scrapyards and dealers and collectors. There are of course issues with the weapons and they usually have to be demilitarised (e..g. by drilling holes in the guns.) e.g.
In this case the Abbot SPG looks as if it has been hired for the day by one of those tank (sic) driving places. They use Abbots quite a bit as they are rather smaller and cheaper than a Chieftain.
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.
And what did you find in room 101? A hedge fund manager - with a check book?
The problem with alot of political anoraks is that they cannot objectively dissect politics (me obviously included). The Tory, David Herdson is a wonderful exception- I don't think I have disagreed with any of his analysis over the years.
@OxfordSimon- Oxford is a harsh, lonely wilderness for those of right wingy persuasions. How do you cope with being the only Tory in Oxford?
And Nicola Blackwood's Oxford West representation is sheer deceit. She gets all her votes from West and zilch from Oxford.
There's very little of the City of Oxford actually in the seat, so it's not that surprising. But a continued assault by Labour on those areas in the City has not helped the Lib Dem's chances of regaining the seat. If the LDs are to do it they will be almost as reliant on Abingdon votes as she was.
And what did I say...The BBC would cover Miliband hypocrisy in the same way it covers Mirror phone hacking.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
Well done you found the links...now tell me when it has been in the top 3-4 stories on the website...you won't, because it hasn't. Again compare and contrast to the coverage of each NI court case, where celebs were claiming damages, it was always front page, top few stories.
They have covered it like the Labour Lord raid story in comparison to the Tory Lord. Tory Lord top story, Labour Lord, there is a link, it was about listed about 8th on the politics page, Tory Lord, it was the main story.
On the Lord Steel comments, how about this for a lukewarm endorsement of the party leader?
Asked about the possibility of a change of leadership in the party after the poll, Lord Steel said: "We mustn't start pushing Nick Clegg out the window until we've actually had the election."
Re Gazza - that sounds plausible as a big factor for him. I read his autobiog a decade ago [ghosted by Hunter Davies IIRC] and it's full of mistrust as terrible things kept being leaked to the press, he couldn't find out who'd done it and felt betrayed.
And what did I say...The BBC would cover Miliband hypocrisy in the same way it covers Mirror phone hacking.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
TBH, I have met Gazza and I met him before it was claimed his phone was being hacked etc and he was a total disaster waiting to happen, with an army of hangers on that encouraged him to do stupid stuff.
"If large numbers of public sector workers, perhaps as many as a million, are made redundant and there are substantial cuts in public spending in 2010, as proposed by some in the Conservative Party, five million unemployed or more is not inconceivable.
@OxfordSimon- Oxford is a harsh, lonely wilderness for those of right wingy persuasions. How do you cope with being the only Tory in Oxford?
And Nicola Blackwood's Oxford West representation is sheer deceit. She gets all her votes from West and zilch from Oxford.
I am not the only non-Labour voter in Oxford. Thankfully. It would be good to have more of us so that we could challenge the inept local city council and their self-serving, small-minded councillors. But there we are.
Just by way of an example, my local Labour councillor recently condemned local residents for not cleaning up the mess left by vandals in my area. She didn't condemn those who go out spray-painting every wall and object they can find. She didn't condemn the police for failing to tackle the issue. She didn't condemn the council officials who fail to repair damage to public buildings. No, it is all down to the residents.
This is the same councillor who didn't help when I reported fly-posting by a local group - who were pasting up posters advertising an event hosted at the Town Hall. They had all the evidence they needed as to who was responsible - and failed to act. Because it was a cause they supported.
Oxford is a harsh place - because of the mismanagement of the Labour city council!
I don't know how long Jack's ARSE has been out for this time, but today is my first glimpse of it this side of the US election.
Judging by just how accurate Jack's ARSE has been, I know I have made alot of money on it over the years. And this is a betting site. And it explains to me a bit more just why the betfair most seats market is so skewed to the Tories.
Can Mike, or a site editor please incorporate Jack's ARSE in the polls when they come in on the leader rolling threads when polls come out.
On the Lord Steel comments, how about this for a lukewarm endorsement of the party leader?
Asked about the possibility of a change of leadership in the party after the poll, Lord Steel said: "We mustn't start pushing Nick Clegg out the window until we've actually had the election."
One of those "true but we must not mention it" things in politics, isn't it? Like what you might be prepared to concede for a coalition...
Comments
quite, and Interesting that no other leftie wishes to comment on the military wing of the Labour Party attempting to overthrow by force a democratically elected government if they don't like the result whatever voting system is in use. Keep in mind that nearly one third of potential Labour MPs will be in the pay of or connected to Unison.
And not forgetting the propogander ministry of the Labour Party doing the same thing for communications. Can anyone .....anyone at all seriously believe that if this week this was a Tory involved it would not be the top story? If you do you are completely deluded.
The best post this morning though was Dairs though where it was pointed out the "the English as always just want lots of free stuff from the Scots". Well It's a view I suppose.....
She had an interview in edinburgh, on the day when she had a DWP appointment, we phoned up and they said fine, come in on the Wednesday instead. People just lie straight forward about it. They dont attend, dont tell anyone and then woner why they get sanctioned.
I have some work on this afternoon, what do you think the consequnces would be if i just didnt turn up? I wouldnt get paid. Nor should i expect to get paid.
May I also contend that it's a pleasure to see you posting on a somewhat more regular basis, especially in that style.
So it`s good to save up the BS that he comes up with and throw it back when the time is right.
21/03/2015 09:44
NEW #ge2015 poll out tonight for MOS. Earlier @DamianSurvation spoke to @toryboypierce @LBC on polls vs the budget: soundcloud.com/survation/dami…
It also makes it even harder to convince the under 40s the Tories are on their side.
malcolmg: "how is your post relevant to this thread SMUK, add value or take a hike"
The thread is relevant to the 2015 election by virtue of the final sentence. The Scottish seats make up about a third of the battleground seats in the country for the election (i.e. those which may change hands), and the local dynamics there are therefore of interest.
Malcolm - all viewpoints are relevant. Do not try to hound posters away. It's not as if Scots nationalists have always posted on topic.
Like me,David seems to have missed the joke too.
But no, there is no agenda at the BBC.
None. Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
Go look at some of the real nasty insulting arseholes on here and ask them to shape up.
"Contemptible weasel Ed Miliband today confessed to rancid hypocrisy shortly before resigning and entering self-imposed exile"?
On an entirely serious note, I'm thinking of writing a mini-story about Sir Edric having a holiday in the UK ahead of the General Election and being bemused at the situation. The biggest problem is trying to have him express an equal degree of contempt for the three main leaders. Hard to get the balance precisely right.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
I seem to remember that you were totally against the idea a few weeks ago when Labour was proposing it.
"What shall I do this morning? I know, pick a fight with the bloke who drives a tank to the BBC with 1M signatures. During my re-election"
Not so. 'Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minisiter' is not a projection capable of being narrowed down. JackW, who is not a pollster as far as I know, has placed his reputation fairly and squarely on the line.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
Yep, the SNP will clean up in Scotland. Labour deserves everything it is going to get. And the same thing will happen next year too in the Scottish elections. However, Labour slipping into third place is not that likely. Although its vote has collapsed, it does still seem to have about 25% support. That's a big ask for the Tories.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
That sounds right.
And leads to the question of how the SNP could screw up badly in Holyrood.
With macroeconomics and foreign policy still controlled from London that only leaves a massive corruption scandal as a possibility.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-open-to-the-charge-of-hypocrisy-after-failing-to-divulge-hedge-fund-managers-donation-10124387.html
Not normally regarded as the 'baby eaters' paper.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
The only way the Tories will ever revive in Scotland is when it is independent. They do not have the balls to become a Scottish party inside the union and so will continue to stagnate, wither away whilst competing with Lib Dems , radical socialists etc for the crumbs of list seats.
The simple truth is the SNP are morphing into far left socialists. The far left in Scotland have determined they do not need Labour to be able to pursue far left policies.
Under devolution Scottish voters can vote for who they want where they want when they want. Its their choice and they have to decide what they think is best. What Scottish MPs cannot do or should not be able to is vote on English only matters when they themselves cannot vote on those same issues for their own constituencies.
Any student of my fine organ will know it is not a "pollster" and does not produce a nowcast but a projection for May 7th.
Further any close historical inspection of the contents of my ARSE would indicate to even the most brain addled dullard that it has enjoyed great stability in its various projections since 2005.
You together with other ARSE deniers will be proved spectacularly wrong as they have been in the past.
The SNP has achieved a paradigm shift in Scottish politics. The name of the game is no longer SLAB or anti-Tory but rather Unionist versus Nationalist. With the Unionist vote split between at least three parties and the Nationalists grouped around just one, means that the SNP will be dominant. Will the Unionists recognise this and act accordingly?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2i4cik3x8y/Times_Scotland_150312_Website.pdf
SNP Support
Scots: 51%
Non UK born: 36%
Other bits of UK: 30%
And stability means your forecast near the 7th May should indicate about 250 seats for Lab and 310 seats for Con.I`ll wait to see what happens.
Labour accused of hypocrisy over donation revelation
There are plenty of ways of covering the story. I don't for one moment believe that the BBC News team would find any difficulty in finding an angle if the Conservatives were found accepting donations from a sector they had recently been trashing all over the media.
There is nothing wrong with accepting a legitimate political donation. There is plenty wrong with denouncing people for accepting donations from one particular group and then being found to have have accepted over £600k from a member of that group.
I think the upshot is that the SNP will clean up in UK FPTP general elections until such time as they screw up really badly.
Scots can vote how they like. But there seems little point in voting for a party that can neither form part of a Westminster government nor opposition. The SNP have just lost an independence referendum, the economic terms have turned against independence - they are no nearer now working out a central bank a currency membership of the EU Euro or anything. Swapping Labour/LD MPs in Westminster for SNP ones makes a left of centre government less not more likely.
How could a single Unionist party form a government in Scotland? On the other hand, if you are on the centre left in Scotland it's perfectly rational to vote SNP, even if you would vote No in a referendum, because it's the surest way you will get a centre left government. That only changes if the SNP decides that pushing for separation is the be all and end all, which it is unlikely to do for a while, at least, given the collapse of its economic and fiscal case.
The only thing he knows seems to be to destroy the opponent`s reputation with no positive vision to talk about.
But it should be on the BBC news website - it really should. If David Steel's comments about future LD direction are worthy of a story, so is this.
Negative stories and "core themes" were what Lynton's reputation for winning elections are based on.
It might work in a British setting, but there seems to be some doubt amongst analysts on both the left and right
But if I was a Tory,I would also be wary of hedge funds and party funding becoming an issue this close to the general election as the Tories are on the wrong side of public opinion there.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that "their whole existence is based on the referendum which they lost". It's no longer their whole purpose, though it remains their primary one. They've morphed from a single-issue party to a party of government and - as my post points out - are now developing that further by establishing a firm position in the centre of the Scottish ideological spectrum. I'd say that was a fairly significant development.
However I minded to recall that since 2005 most "academic forecasts" in elections both here and in the US have failed to show the rounded accuracy of my ARSE.
Only a black swan event such as David Cameron being found in flagrante delicto with a large dark feathered bird owned by HM the Queen is likely to alter the essential dynamics of my vastly understated and humble ARSE.
I suspect Laws might be a good bet for next leader if Clegg loses his seat, otherwise I suspect it is five more years of the Clegg and Cameron show.
If the three Unionist parties want to target the core Unionist vote at the expense of the rest, I'm sure the SNP would be ecstatic.
This is how SKY are reporting the story, the Independent has a different version.
"Ed Miliband is facing embarrassment after it emerged one of the Labour Party's largest donors is a hedge fund manager.
It has been disclosed that a "mystery" donor who has given the party nearly £600,000 is Martin Taylor, who describes himself as "a born and bred Londoner, who also happens to be a hedge fund manager".
The revelation will be particularly awkward for Mr Miliband, who routinely criticises the Conservatives over their reliance on funding from hedge fund mangers and businessmen.
Last month during a heated exchange in the Commons Mr Miliband dubbed the Tories "the party of Mayfair hedge funds and Monaco tax avoiders".
Electoral Commission records show Mr Taylor has made eight donations, totaling £591,000, to Labour since 2012, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism."
Labour's hypocrisy on this topic is a new factor - and if it were being reported widely (which may or may not yet happen), it would have an effect. It feeds into the idea that Miliband says one thing and does another.
No hedge fund money - that is bad - except when I am accepting it and meeting the donor
No tax avoidance - that is bad - except when my family has set up a deed of variation to limit our personal liabilities
The charge of hypocrisy is one that will stick
Sure there's a point, you get an MP from a party you like. Not to mention that sometimes they'll hold the balance of power, which they'll leverage to get you better stuff.
Yesterday on the BBC was a classic compare and contrast...
NEWS INTERNATIONAL, SUN, HACKING, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, JAILED MOD OFFICIAL...MAIN STORY MAIN STORY MAIN STORY...oh and by the way the Sun journos were not guilty. BUT TIME FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY SCARED BY THIS INFORMATION BEING PUBLISHED IN THE SUN
At the same time, Mirror trial been going on all week...you say what, the Mirror had teams of individuals who all they did was hack phones...nadda...a number of people had heart wrenching stories including Gazza (one of the most famous British footballers) claims the Mirror hacking his phone for 10 YEARS, yes 10 YEARS, wrecked his life, caused his problem with alcohol*, etc.
* my own take on if this claim is true is another matter, but just saying that is what has been stated in court.
Martin Guptill
It was his position during the lamentable Lib/Lab pact prior to the 79 election where the Liberals got a deal of the blame for very little gain. A formal coalition provides essential long term stability and the prospect of enacting some manifesto pledges and influencing policy across government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31817720
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31829338
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31976227
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31861012
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-exec-alan-yentob-tells-court-least-16-mirror-journalists-were-involved-hacking-his-phone
It's really not hard.
Once established, things which confirm a person's existing understanding ring truer than things which contradict it.
And Nicola Blackwood's Oxford West representation is sheer deceit. She gets all her votes from West and zilch from Oxford.
But having 40+ MPs on Westminster is not very influential. If they seek to influence Labour with both far left policies and with powers over England then that will not help Labour gain seats in England and would make their influence counter productive to whatever end they would seek.
And consider this. The SNP have hegemony in Scotland and with devolution they are immune from any wider downside which their votes in Westminster may bring about for everybody else. So what benefit is there to any other party in being allied with them?
Which ever way scottish voters look at it - if they want left wing policies in Westminster they should vote labour. If they want centre right policies in Scotland and Westminster they should vote Conservative. The only point to voting SNP is if they want independence - a notion that has been rejected nationally and is now broken backed economically. The Scottish electorate are of course as free as any anywhere to be as illogical as they please.
http://www.armourgeddonrestorations.co.uk/index.php#.VQ1bBY6sWUI
In this case the Abbot SPG looks as if it has been hired for the day by one of those tank (sic) driving places. They use Abbots quite a bit as they are rather smaller and cheaper than a Chieftain.
They have covered it like the Labour Lord raid story in comparison to the Tory Lord. Tory Lord top story, Labour Lord, there is a link, it was about listed about 8th on the politics page, Tory Lord, it was the main story.
Asked about the possibility of a change of leadership in the party after the poll, Lord Steel said: "We mustn't start pushing Nick Clegg out the window until we've actually had the election."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase Is this going to be the one for GE2015 ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/6224723/Tory-public-spending-cuts-could-push-unemployment-to-5-million.html
Just by way of an example, my local Labour councillor recently condemned local residents for not cleaning up the mess left by vandals in my area. She didn't condemn those who go out spray-painting every wall and object they can find. She didn't condemn the police for failing to tackle the issue. She didn't condemn the council officials who fail to repair damage to public buildings. No, it is all down to the residents.
This is the same councillor who didn't help when I reported fly-posting by a local group - who were pasting up posters advertising an event hosted at the Town Hall. They had all the evidence they needed as to who was responsible - and failed to act. Because it was a cause they supported.
Oxford is a harsh place - because of the mismanagement of the Labour city council!
I don't know how long Jack's ARSE has been out for this time, but today is my first glimpse of it this side of the US election.
Judging by just how accurate Jack's ARSE has been, I know I have made alot of money on it over the years. And this is a betting site. And it explains to me a bit more just why the betfair most seats market is so skewed to the Tories.
Can Mike, or a site editor please incorporate Jack's ARSE in the polls when they come in on the leader rolling threads when polls come out.
Please- I think Jack's ARSE deserves to be seen.