In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
Maybe 315 seats is the target for parties / coalitions. If you get to 315 you can invite the Democratic Unionsts with 8 seats to support you which takes you to 323 seats, which is enough to govern assuming Sinn Fein continue to stay away from Westminster.
That assumption might not necessarily still be valid. Their manifesto launch yesterday interestingly mentioned a desire to influence some UK government policy.
Hmm - I think Ed Miliband may talk to the Nats, PC, the SDLP, possibly the Green(s?) (At a real push) but not Sinn Fein or Galloway.
Doubt SF will take their seats still though. One of our Irish posters will probably offer good odds
Charles.. we have a cat..and I do have a handgun..but I prefer to see him fly away..He is at one end and a Woodpecker is busy destroying a tree at the other end of the garden..who said the countryside was quiet.
"Nationally there appears to be a small uptick in some polls for the LibDems."
If you look at Mr Gadfly's graph of the Yougov scores, it does look like a very gradual rise from the abyss.
Looking at Ukip's scores, they seem to have drifted down before the campaign proper started and also have begun a slight recovery. No publicity is bad publicity for them
Something that hasn't been discussed much is the fact that any chance of a Lab/LD coalition has been effectively ended by the SNP surge. I think a lot of LDs were secretly hoping they could swap over from a Con/LD government to a Lab/LD government in order to placate their more left-wing members and to win back some of their lost support from 2010-15. Also it would support their fairness and equidistance agenda since they could say "we've done 5 years with the Tories, now we're doing 5 years with Labour".
Lab have found the answer to the Scotland attacks-that Cameron is prepared to break up the UK by bigging up SNP-the attacks are coming from Lab and Lib.
Aw bless....such naivety. I bet you believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden as well. No doubt this latest piece of BS came out of the same manure pile as the cutting of 2000 nurses It's looking like desperation by team red. Complete carnage North of the border, threats from Wales and marginals on the brink in England.
It's slipping away and you know it "..............and we all know you know it.
Something that hasn't been discussed much is the fact that any chance of a Lab/LD coalition has been effectively ended by the SNP surge. I think a lot of LDs were secretly hoping they could swap over from a Con/LD government to a Lab/LD government in order to placate their more left-wing members and to win back some of their lost support from 2010-15.
Lib-Lab with SNP support is possible, as it could have more English MPs than Con + UKIP. If the numbers are as tight as the forecasters have, solely Lab + SNP won't be able to govern as effectively as Lib/Lab with SNP support. That would be seen to have more legitimacy than plain Lab/SNP too - particularly if its Lab 275, SNP 50 or some such.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
Charles.. we have a cat..and I do have a handgun..but I prefer to see him fly away..He is at one end and a Woodpecker is busy destroying a tree at the other end of the garden..who said the countryside was quiet.
Alot of Lib Dems do seem to have a particularly large amount of hatred for the SNP mind, particularly Lamb and I've heard Farron too so it might be a non starter...
I've not ruled it out for betting purposes, but keeping more profit on Lab minority.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same.
75% of Scottish votes - or thereabouts - will go to Labour and the SNP. The Tories are attacking both remember and saying both are planning an alliance that will wreak havoc across the country. As I say, politics is a dirty game and the Tories will do what it takes to win, but why didn't they just sit out the referendum last year instead of fighting so hard to hold together a Union they clearly feel is not really that important?
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
Alot of Lib Dems do seem to have a particularly large amount of hatred for the SNP mind, particularly Lamb and I've heard Farron too so it might be a non starter...
I've not ruled it out for betting purposes, but keeping more profit on Lab minority.
Ten LibDem scalps hanging from the SNP sporran is hardly going to help relations!
Moses there are three eagles that live on the crags just above us...and lots of raptors in the area....and we do keep an eye on the cat when they start flying over our place...great to watch tho.
"Nationally there appears to be a small uptick in some polls for the LibDems."
If you look at Mr Gadfly's graph of the Yougov scores, it does look like a very gradual rise from the abyss.
Looking at Ukip's scores, they seem to have drifted down before the campaign proper started and also have begun a slight recovery. No publicity is bad publicity for them
The ICM Wisdom Index puts the LibDems at 14%. IMO it's likely to be 12%ish although the ICM WI was remarkably accurate in 2010.
The UKIP score is somewhat trickier to determine. Most polls indicate a steady drift south. Sean Fear, whose posts I always note carefully, is in the 12% range. My only caveat is the potential for shy Kipper syndrome. I'm not sure it will effect their seat score but at the margin would damage the Conservative cause disproportionately.
Lab have found the answer to the Scotland attacks-that Cameron is prepared to break up the UK by bigging up SNP-the attacks are coming from Lab and Lib.
There is no real need to 'big up' the SNP: they're doing a very good job of bigging themselves up, mainly due to the failures of Scottish Labour. Have you been reading the polls?
Blaming the Conservatives for Labour's failures appears odd. At least, unless you're a Labour supporter, in which case everything bad that happens is always everyone else's fault. Usually Thatcher's.
My belief that SLab's losses will not be as bad as the polls show is becoming decreasingly evidence-based and more fath-based with each poll...
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
"Well, to be fair, one person raised the SNP but only in the context of wishing she could vote for them. I've detected no change whatsoever since 2013."
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
I increasingly have difficulty seeing how Ed can be PM if he barely advances Labour’s total seats -- irrespective of the SNP + Lab total.
If Ed only modestly advances Labour’s seat total, he will then have:
1. failed to obtain a majority of Labour MPs/MEPs in 2010, 2. failed to obtain a majority of the Labour party members in 2010, 3. failed to obtain a majority in Holyrood 2011 (& saw his party routed), 4. presided over a disastrous SIndy referendum for his party, 5. failed to obtain a majority of seats in England in GE 2015, 6. failed to obtain a majority of seats in Scotland in GE 2015 for the first time in half a century ( & perhaps failed to obtain any seats in Scotland). 7. set fire to his Scottish Branch Office.
Apart from winning the affiliated vote in 2010 and likely achieving a plurality of MPs in Wales in 2015, I really cannot think of any other actual electoral achievement.
With that record on your cv, you can really still become PM ?
Labour need to get rid of him before he does any more damage to his party.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
I increasingly have difficulty seeing how Ed can be PM if he barely advances Labour’s total seats -- irrespective of the SNP + Lab total.
If Ed only modestly advances Labour’s seat total, he will then have:
1. failed to obtain a majority of Labour MPs/MEPs in 2010, 2. failed to obtain a majority of the Labour party members in 2010, 3. failed to obtain a majority in Holyrood 2011 (& saw his party routed), 4. presided over a disastrous SIndy referendum for his party, 5. failed to obtain a majority of seats in England in GE 2015, 6. failed to obtain a majority of seats in Scotland in GE 2015 for the first time in half a century ( & perhaps failed to obtain any seats in Scotland). 7. set fire to his Scottish Branch Office.
Apart from winning the affiliated vote in 2010 and likely achieving a plurality of MPs in Wales in 2015, I really cannot think of any other actual electoral achievement.
With that record on your cv, you can really still become PM ?
Labour need to get rid of him before he does any more damage to his party.
Labour will do very well to retain the net number of seats they have currently. But I doubt that will save Ed. He'll be gone pretty soon after the GE.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
That's a bit silly Mr Div.
The Nats were aching for a fight with plummy voiced Tories and didn't get one. Cameron played it well and I don't often say that. Had it not been for Brown's pancked Vow he would have played it perfectly, but SLab had the lead in Scotland as they allegedly "knew" their voters.
The Tories also delivered the highest No vote from among their supporters.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
The 'Cameron would have resigned' story is rather dodgy: you shouldn't be stating it as fact, and especially as 'evidence' for your theories.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
SO, you're consistantly confusing 'Scotland' with 'the SNP'..
thanks for sharing the Chokkablog analysis. It's excellent and destoys the economic case for independence.
And, depressingly, it's potentially good news for England. I think Scotland has gone already emotionally. The political realities will eventually catch up. There'll either be another referendum with a YES result - in which case the burden of Scotland will no longer fall on England. Or the Scots will realise just how fucked they are without the oil and the SNPgasm evaporates - leading to a harmonisation of per capita spending. We're at peak-SNP right now.
I'm one of many many English who value equality and representational fairness alot higher than we value union. If shafting the English to keep the Scots is the price of union then the union will not last long.
Moses there are three eagles that live on the crags just above us...and lots of raptors in the area....and we do keep an eye on the cat when they start flying over our place...great to watch tho.
It sounds like nothing less than a pet dragon is going to help.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
SO, you're consistantly confusing 'Scotland' with 'the SNP'..
Don't forget 25% or so of Scots will vote Labour. The Tories are saying both parties will inflict the chaos, not just the SNP.
I increasingly have difficulty seeing how Ed can be PM if he barely advances Labour’s total seats -- irrespective of the SNP + Lab total.
If Ed only modestly advances Labour’s seat total, he will then have:
1. failed to obtain a majority of Labour MPs/MEPs in 2010, 2. failed to obtain a majority of the Labour party members in 2010, 3. failed to obtain a majority in Holyrood 2011 (& saw his party routed), 4. presided over a disastrous SIndy referendum for his party, 5. failed to obtain a majority of seats in England in GE 2015, 6. failed to obtain a majority of seats in Scotland in GE 2015 for the first time in half a century ( & perhaps failed to obtain any seats in Scotland). 7. set fire to his Scottish Branch Office.
Apart from winning the affiliated vote in 2010 and likely achieving a plurality of MPs in Wales in 2015, I really cannot think of any other actual electoral achievement.
With that record on your cv, you can really still become PM ?
Labour need to get rid of him before he does any more damage to his party.
Labour will do very well to retain the net number of seats they have currently. But I doubt that will save Ed. He'll be gone pretty soon after the GE.
"Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same. "
I think you will find that a lot of people in Scotland are beginning to see many of the attacks on the SNP as indeed anti-Scottish (some of the attacks could easily qualify as racist) rather in the same way that attacks on Gordon Brown by the British press in 2010 came across to many as anti-Scottish.
Hence a boost for Brown and Labour in Scotland in 2010 and for the SNP in 2015.
The idea that Scotland might ignore its debt obligations by essentially deciding in the event of independence it retroactively did not support or play a part in the union, despite the confirmation just last year, and ignoring the shared responsibility of the unitary state, is one which makes me very made. Surely they wouldn't do such a thing.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Yes and no. They did those things because they thought doing otherwise would be counterproductive, rightly or wrongly. Choosing to do that might have been a hard choice.
Something that hasn't been discussed much is the fact that any chance of a Lab/LD coalition has been effectively ended by the SNP surge. I think a lot of LDs were secretly hoping they could swap over from a Con/LD government to a Lab/LD government in order to placate their more left-wing members and to win back some of their lost support from 2010-15. Also it would support their fairness and equidistance agenda since they could say "we've done 5 years with the Tories, now we're doing 5 years with Labour".
That's one reason I'd assumed a Lab-LD coalition was more likely than an Con-LD one, though I think none was always the favourite option. What they really want it the ability to pick and choose which side they could work with. Accusations of horse trading would abound of course, and be true, but it's all part of the game, and they could get more for themselves (and thus the country, they would argue) if the other side feared they could cross the floor.
I must say I'm still a little baffled at having been accused of being a secret Tory yesterday. Apparently people have trouble getting their heads around the idea people can lean in various political directions, particularly on some issues, without being an out and out party supporter for whatever reason, and all the non-party supporting stuff is just cover for one's true inclinations.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
SO, you're consistantly confusing 'Scotland' with 'the SNP'..
Don't forget 25% or so of Scots will vote Labour. The Tories are saying both parties will inflict the chaos, not just the SNP.
Oh my word! pointing out voting for the opposition would lead to chaos!!
john l Jones UKIP @jlj21964 2m2 minutes ago Working Class Voters Eyeing UKIP As Polling Tips Surprise Northern England Wins - Breitbart http://bit.ly/1zBorDs via @BreitbartNews
Those jumped up Kippers surprisingly up-beat, up north.
"Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same. "
I think you will find that a lot of people in Scotland are beginning to see many of the attacks on the SNP as indeed anti-Scottish (some of the attacks could easily qualify as racist) rather in the same way that attacks on Gordon Brown by the British press in 2010 came across to many as anti-Scottish.
Hence a boost for Brown and Labour in Scotland in 2010 and for the SNP in 2015.
It's still incorrect, even if sadly many people do believe that.
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
"Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same. "
I think you will find that a lot of people in Scotland are beginning to see many of the attacks on the SNP as indeed anti-Scottish (some of the attacks could easily qualify as racist) rather in the same way that attacks on Gordon Brown by the British press in 2010 came across to many as anti-Scottish.
Hence a boost for Brown and Labour in Scotland in 2010 and for the SNP in 2015.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
Don't be silly: they are saying that left-wing parties have bad ideas and that people are making the wrong decision to support them. That's just political debate, and any one who takes offense at that is over-sensitive.
The English have always been more romantic about the union than the Scots. With the Scots having discussed the union in transactional terms (including on the No side) for so long during the referendum campaign, the English are starting to do the same.
If the emotional case for union had been made during the referendum campaign, the Conservatives would not be able to make this line of argument.
I increasingly have difficulty seeing how Ed can be PM if he barely advances Labour’s total seats -- irrespective of the SNP + Lab total. If Ed only modestly advances Labour’s seat total, he will then have: 1. failed to obtain a majority of Labour MPs/MEPs in 2010, 2. failed to obtain a majority of the Labour party members in 2010, 3. failed to obtain a majority in Holyrood 2011 (& saw his party routed), 4. presided over a disastrous SIndy referendum for his party, 5. failed to obtain a majority of seats in England in GE 2015, 6. failed to obtain a majority of seats in Scotland in GE 2015 for the first time in half a century ( & perhaps failed to obtain any seats in Scotland). 7. set fire to his Scottish Branch Office. Apart from winning the affiliated vote in 2010 and likely achieving a plurality of MPs in Wales in 2015, I really cannot think of any other actual electoral achievement. With that record on your cv, you can really still become PM ? Labour need to get rid of him before he does any more damage to his party.
One achievement omitted. Failed to obtain the largest group of UK MEPs at the EC elections of 2014.
I think Scotland has gone already emotionally. The political realities will eventually catch up.
Yes, sadly. Anyone claiming a landslide win for the SNP at Westminster doesn't mean that is guilty of wishful thinking I fear. I know PQ in Canada have fluctuated up and down in seats, but it feels different here.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Why? Have I missed something in the polls?
Since Friday the media air-war has generally been in the Tories favour, which hasn't really happened (apart from manifesto day) - at least to my mind - since Tony Blair's contribution for Labour
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
The UKIP support is remarkeably evenly spread, with little sign of tactical voting for anyone. It would seem that they will not lose many deposits, but will struggle to break 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. I think their net effect on the election is going to be nearly negligible.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
You might be right-the support level for the SNP is incredible.
However, I well remember after the 2007 Holyrood election when the SNP beat Labour by a single seat and polled 32% of the vote, the victory was declared as peak SNP with a "perfect storm" having given them an unrepeatable victory.
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
His constant 'tick' and 'tock' posts are extremely irritating!
The idea that Scotland might ignore its debt obligations by essentially deciding in the event of independence it retroactively did not support or play a part in the union, despite the confirmation just last year, and ignoring the shared responsibility of the unitary state, is one which makes me very made. Surely they wouldn't do such a thing.
[snip]
Actually, this was much discussed during indyref. the liability of rUK for the entire debt is a direct consequence of the Unionist argument that Scotland would be a state de novo, in order to argue that rUK would be the continuing British state for such things as the UN Security Council permanent seat. You may not recall that the Westminster Treasury itself admitted as much when it confirmed some months before indyref (during the Christmas break, IIRC, to keep it quiet) that rUK would be liable for all the debt, as it exists now.
How much Scotland paid would, of course, be a separate matter for negotiation: but in any case it would be dealt with as a separate matter (i.e. UK War Loan don't suddenly become Scottish War Loan, etc.).
"Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same. "
I think you will find that a lot of people in Scotland are beginning to see many of the attacks on the SNP as indeed anti-Scottish (some of the attacks could easily qualify as racist) rather in the same way that attacks on Gordon Brown by the British press in 2010 came across to many as anti-Scottish.
Hence a boost for Brown and Labour in Scotland in 2010 and for the SNP in 2015.
But saying "we love the Scots and want a Union with them" necessarily entails saying "we violently disagree with the increasingly large subset of Scots who don't want a Union". There is no way round that, until the subset becomes so large that you say "ah, feck it" and throw your hand in, and we aren't there yet. Desperate argument from Labour.
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
Tough.
The Tories aren't attacking Scots, a steady fraction of whom still vote Tory despite all this so-called negative campaigning. They're attacking the SNP and Labour. Suggesting you can't attack your political opponents is a funny way to run a democracy.
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
(this is a sample of 64 UKIP voters though!)
It looks more that the Tory vote has fallen away and the Labour vote risen in those marginals, so it would actually be Ukip pulling votes from the Tories.
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
(this is a sample of 64 UKIP voters though!)
I think LA's marginal polling the other day tended to confirm that the tories were safest in marginals with large UKIP votes. If so it suggests that the blue kippers will return to the fold to stop Ed but red ones won't.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
His constant 'tick' and 'tock' posts are extremely irritating!
And counterproductive. I used to root for him on the grounds that PBdom transcends party divides, but some levels of complacency just ask for a comeuppance.
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 18th April Projection) :
Con 303 (+1) .. Lab 253 (-2) .. LibDem 29 (+1) .. SNP 40 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain from TCTC Warwickshire North - TCTC Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 18 Apr - Broxtowe 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
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same.
75% of Scottish votes - or thereabouts - will go to Labour and the SNP. The Tories are attacking both remember and saying both are planning an alliance that will wreak havoc across the country. As I say, politics is a dirty game and the Tories will do what it takes to win, but why didn't they just sit out the referendum last year instead of fighting so hard to hold together a Union they clearly feel is not really that important?
The SNP is not a party that favours the continuing maintenance of the Union. The Conservatives are. Attacking their separatist influence seems within a hung parliament entirely consistent to me. The majority of Scots will still be voting for unionist parties.
john l Jones UKIP @jlj21964 2m2 minutes ago Working Class Voters Eyeing UKIP As Polling Tips Surprise Northern England Wins - Breitbart http://bit.ly/1zBorDs via @BreitbartNews
Those jumped up Kippers surprisingly up-beat, up north.
If the tips are anything like the Hull 'polling', they're likely to remain disappointed.
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
(this is a sample of 64 UKIP voters though!)
It looks more that the Tory vote has fallen away and the Labour vote risen in those marginals, so it would actually be Ukip pulling votes from the Tories.
Not sure how much you can read into a sample of 9 people.
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
His constant 'tick' and 'tock' posts are extremely irritating!
I like the "tick tock" posts. They are posts which have relevance for political betting.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
Is the Tory strategy putting formerly safe Scottish tory seats at risk?
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
It's not Labour in Scotland SO, it's a weak labour party full stop....
This is a message for english voters, not for scottish voters... it's to get UKIP wavierers back.
Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They kept their Generals hidden away from 'ordinary Scots', protected their own small division and let SLab clear the minefields on foot. I wouldn't say they fought particularly hard.
Not sure about that. They signed up to the Vow and it emerged after the vote that Cameron would have resigned if it had gone the other way. They clearly wanted the Union to stay in place. I just don't get why.
SO, you're consistantly confusing 'Scotland' with 'the SNP'..
Don't forget 25% or so of Scots will vote Labour. The Tories are saying both parties will inflict the chaos, not just the SNP.
Oh my word! pointing out voting for the opposition would lead to chaos!!
Anyone would think there's an election on.
As I say, all is fair in politics. I have no problem with the Tories doing what they think is necessary to win. My interest is in the aftermath. If the Tories are committed to the Union they will have some work to do to heal wounds. If they think it will just be forgotten I believe they are deluding themselves. We will find out in a few weeks I guess.
Lab have found the answer to the Scotland attacks-that Cameron is prepared to break up the UK by bigging up SNP-the attacks are coming from Lab and Lib.
There is no real need to 'big up' the SNP: they're doing a very good job of bigging themselves up, mainly due to the failures of Scottish Labour. Have you been reading the polls?
Blaming the Conservatives for Labour's failures appears odd. At least, unless you're a Labour supporter, in which case everything bad that happens is always everyone else's fault. Usually Thatcher's.
My belief that SLab's losses will not be as bad as the polls show is becoming decreasingly evidence-based and more fath-based with each poll...
Quite right. Labour are blaming everyone else for the collapse of their Scottish seats, except themselves.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were nes a mystery.
They're rests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Sayi the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that ce
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
I suspect you are right, though it is still unreasonable. Political parties accuse their opponents of planning to do terrible things intentionally or through incompetence all the time, in sometimes quite insulting terms, does that mean those parties are insulting every person who chooses to vote for them? A little, perhaps, but it flows both ways, the Tories are just unfortunate that two of the ones they want to attack the most are clustered much more strongly in Scotland.
You might be right-the support level for the SNP is incredible.
However, I well remember after the 2007 Holyrood election when the SNP beat Labour by a single seat and polled 32% of the vote, the victory was declared as peak SNP with a "perfect storm" having given them an unrepeatable victory.
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
His constant 'tick' and 'tock' posts are extremely irritating!
I'm fine with them, actually.
It implies a degree of complacency. Either that or, of course, mendacity. But as we all know, Labour candidates are paragons of virtue, so it must be the former.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
They're not insulting them.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Saying that Scots are voting for two parties that will deliver chaos, leave the UK defenceless and inflict huge suffering on the population may be seen in Scotland to be pretty insulting. That's fine: that's politics and sometimes you have to get down and dirty to win. But I just don't get why the Tories put so much on the line for the Union last year when they are clearly not that interested in maintaining it.
So in 2010, say, the Tories should not have campaigned against Labour because Scotland, which then voted predominantly Labour, would have felt all hurt and unloved?
Of course the Tories should attack Labour in every way they can in order to win. My point is that centring your strategy on a message that says the Scots are about to inflict chaos on the UK is not necessarily the way to show to Scots that you are committed to the Union. I just wonder how the Tories will rebuild bridges after the election, or if they interested in doing so. If they are writing Scotland off forever, why did they invest so much in a No vote last year?
They are saying the *SNP* will inflict chaos, not the Scots.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
No, they are saying the SNP and Labour - that's 75% of Scottish voters. It's not me the Tories have to convince, Charles, it's the Scots. I am not sure they will see things in the same way as you.
It's not Labour in Scotland SO, it's a weak labour party full stop....
This is a message for english voters, not for scottish voters... it's to get UKIP wavierers back.
I know. But my guess is that it is being noticed in Scotland. They have the telly, the radio and the internet up there.
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 18th April Projection) :
Con 303 (+1) .. Lab 253 (-2) .. LibDem 29 (+1) .. SNP 40 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain from TCTC Warwickshire North - TCTC Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 18 Apr - Broxtowe 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 see Mr Palmer putting a horse head in the bed has done enough to "sway" young Jack.....
The idea that Scotland might ignore its debt obligations by essentially deciding in the event of independence it retroactively did not support or play a part in the union, despite the confirmation just last year, and ignoring the shared responsibility of the unitary state, is one which makes me very made. Surely they wouldn't do such a thing.
[snip]
Actually, this was much discussed during indyref. the liability of rUK for the entire debt is a direct consequence of the Unionist argument that Scotland would be a state de novo, in order to argue that rUK would be the continuing British state for such things as the UN Security Council permanent seat. You may not recall that the Westminster Treasury itself admitted as much when it confirmed some months before indyref (during the Christmas break, IIRC, to keep it quiet) that rUK would be liable for all the debt, as it exists now.
How much Scotland paid would, of course, be a separate matter for negotiation: but in any case it would be dealt with as a separate matter (i.e. UK War Loan don't suddenly become Scottish War Loan, etc.).
I really don't see what the argument is about.
It's just going to be a negotiation. Of course iScot will pay something, and it really isn't the trump card they think it is: if they attempt to walk away from the debt, they will be declaring UDI with all the consequences that entails.
One odd thing about the thread header, is that UKIP seems to be strongest in Labour marginals. I would have expected safe Con seats to be their strongest group.
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
(this is a sample of 64 UKIP voters though!)
It looks more that the Tory vote has fallen away and the Labour vote risen in those marginals, so it would actually be Ukip pulling votes from the Tories.
Not sure how much you can read into a sample of 9 people.
I wouldn't take a sample that size of representative of anything - I was just pointing out that that is where the movement is in the figures.
For the first time in this campaign it feels like the Tories are on top
Too soon to say. They've come back into the game, at any rate.
They were never out of it. But it is beyond me how Cameron and the Tories successfully heal their relationship with Scotland should they retain power. They have effectively decided the only way to win is to insult 75% of the electorate up there. Why they bothered to fight so hard for a No vote is a mystery.
Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same.
75% of Scottish votes - or thereabouts - will go to Labour and the SNP. The Tories are attacking both remember and saying both are planning an alliance that will wreak havoc across the country. As I say, politics is a dirty game and the Tories will do what it takes to win, but why didn't they just sit out the referendum last year instead of fighting so hard to hold together a Union they clearly feel is not really that important?
The SNP is not a party that favours the continuing maintenance of the Union. The Conservatives are. Attacking their separatist influence seems within a hung parliament entirely consistent to me. The majority of Scots will still be voting for unionist parties.
You might want to reconsider that assertion of a 'majority', perhaps, with SNP polling at 49%, plus (presumably) 1-2 points each for the the Scottish Greens and SSP.
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If you are CCHQ and you are getting reports back from constituencies across the country along the lines of "Christ on a bike! This SNP stuff is KILLING Labour on the doorsteps!", do you
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Quite clearly, Labour have picked up that this is starting to hurt them on the doorstep. If they hadn't they wouldn't be attacking it in such shrill and strident terms.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Cue Nick "tis merely a flesh wound" Palmer in 5, 4, 3.....
His constant 'tick' and 'tock' posts are extremely irritating!
I like the "tick tock" posts. They are posts which have relevance for political betting.
Nick Palmer has repeatedly tipped Cambridge as easy Labour gain.
So, if Nick Palmer wishes to post “the clock goes bong”, then it is at least more accurate for betting purposes.
What a prat you are to make such an empty-minded response.
Morris Dancer responded with a reasonable point:
"..one suspects those people who see anti-SNP attacks as anti-Scottish would vigorously deny anti-Conservative attacks as being anti-English. "
Indeed they would, but my comment was primarily about PERCEPTION. Anti-SNP and Anti-Conservative may well for most people not be anti-Scottish or anti-English, but the perception they are may well be growing.
Comments
Let him stay in your garden until he takes up more permanent residence in Thanet South.
Doubt SF will take their seats still though. One of our Irish posters will probably offer good odds
"Nationally there appears to be a small uptick in some polls for the LibDems."
If you look at Mr Gadfly's graph of the Yougov scores, it does look like a very gradual rise from the abyss.
Looking at Ukip's scores, they seem to have drifted down before the campaign proper started and also have begun a slight recovery. No publicity is bad publicity for them
It's looking like desperation by team red. Complete carnage North of the border, threats from Wales and marginals on the brink in England.
It's slipping away and you know it "..............and we all know you know it.
Have a nice day.
Downside is they kill anything that moves so don't let the kids out to play.
I've not ruled it out for betting purposes, but keeping more profit on Lab minority.
The UKIP score is somewhat trickier to determine. Most polls indicate a steady drift south. Sean Fear, whose posts I always note carefully, is in the 12% range. My only caveat is the potential for shy Kipper syndrome. I'm not sure it will effect their seat score but at the margin would damage the Conservative cause disproportionately.
Blaming the Conservatives for Labour's failures appears odd. At least, unless you're a Labour supporter, in which case everything bad that happens is always everyone else's fault. Usually Thatcher's.
My belief that SLab's losses will not be as bad as the polls show is becoming decreasingly evidence-based and more fath-based with each poll...
If Ed only modestly advances Labour’s seat total, he will then have:
1. failed to obtain a majority of Labour MPs/MEPs in 2010,
2. failed to obtain a majority of the Labour party members in 2010,
3. failed to obtain a majority in Holyrood 2011 (& saw his party routed),
4. presided over a disastrous SIndy referendum for his party,
5. failed to obtain a majority of seats in England in GE 2015,
6. failed to obtain a majority of seats in Scotland in GE 2015 for the first time in half a century ( & perhaps failed to obtain any seats in Scotland).
7. set fire to his Scottish Branch Office.
Apart from winning the affiliated vote in 2010 and likely achieving a plurality of MPs in Wales in 2015, I really cannot think of any other actual electoral achievement.
With that record on your cv, you can really still become PM ?
Labour need to get rid of him before he does any more damage to his party.
She looked in my direction with her best "shoe shopping impending" look.
I may need to go into hiding .... until post auction !! ....
UKIP rising!
The Nats were aching for a fight with plummy voiced Tories and didn't get one. Cameron played it well and I don't often say that. Had it not been for Brown's pancked Vow he would have played it perfectly, but SLab had the lead in Scotland as they allegedly "knew" their voters.
The Tories also delivered the highest No vote from among their supporters.
I can understand the sour grapes.
thanks for sharing the Chokkablog analysis. It's excellent and destoys the economic case for independence.
And, depressingly, it's potentially good news for England. I think Scotland has gone already emotionally. The political realities will eventually catch up. There'll either be another referendum with a YES result - in which case the burden of Scotland will no longer fall on England. Or the Scots will realise just how fucked they are without the oil and the SNPgasm evaporates - leading to a harmonisation of per capita spending. We're at peak-SNP right now.
I'm one of many many English who value equality and representational fairness alot higher than we value union. If shafting the English to keep the Scots is the price of union then the union will not last long.
20/04/2015 18:40
John Swinney struggled to defend the SNP's record in government when questioned by @afneil.
> bbc.in/1D7PV54 pic.twitter.com/GMZh2UBG0i
It sounds like nothing less than a pet dragon is going to help.
"Heavily criticising the SNP, its policies and potential chaotic effect on the UK government does not equal insulting Scots.
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same. "
I think you will find that a lot of people in Scotland are beginning to see many of the attacks on the SNP as indeed anti-Scottish (some of the attacks could easily qualify as racist) rather in the same way that attacks on Gordon Brown by the British press in 2010 came across to many as anti-Scottish.
Hence a boost for Brown and Labour in Scotland in 2010 and for the SNP in 2015.
I must say I'm still a little baffled at having been accused of being a secret Tory yesterday. Apparently people have trouble getting their heads around the idea people can lean in various political directions, particularly on some issues, without being an out and out party supporter for whatever reason, and all the non-party supporting stuff is just cover for one's true inclinations.
Anyone would think there's an election on.
Working Class Voters Eyeing UKIP As Polling Tips Surprise Northern England Wins - Breitbart http://bit.ly/1zBorDs via @BreitbartNews
Those jumped up Kippers surprisingly up-beat, up north.
So this chart is showing EICIPM?
Perhaps these are the seats where Labour's support fell away during the New Labour re-alignment?
(this is a sample of 64 UKIP voters though!)
If the emotional case for union had been made during the referendum campaign, the Conservatives would not be able to make this line of argument.
The two English guys behind me are currently discussing Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.
WYSIWYG from charming Cammo.
There's a difference, you do understand that, right?
How many UKIP seats do you now forecast Mike? I forecast 2.
"We're at peak-SNP right now."
You might be right-the support level for the SNP is incredible.
However, I well remember after the 2007 Holyrood election when the SNP beat Labour by a single seat and polled 32% of the vote, the victory was declared as peak SNP with a "perfect storm" having given them an unrepeatable victory.
So, I would not be too sure if I were you.
How much Scotland paid would, of course, be a separate matter for negotiation: but in any case it would be dealt with as a separate matter (i.e. UK War Loan don't suddenly become Scottish War Loan, etc.).
The Tories aren't attacking Scots, a steady fraction of whom still vote Tory despite all this so-called negative campaigning. They're attacking the SNP and Labour. Suggesting you can't attack your political opponents is a funny way to run a democracy.
Realism has set in. He's now down to the high nineties.....
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 18th April Projection) :
Con 303 (+1) .. Lab 253 (-2) .. LibDem 29 (+1) .. SNP 40 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 23 seats short of a majority
Turnout Projection .. 67% (NC)
......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain from TCTC
Warwickshire North - TCTC
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - Con Hold
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Con Hold
Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 18 Apr - Broxtowe 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
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Council-accused-mixing-Muslim-names-election/story-26362452-detail/story.html
I do like the argument though.
"It's all the nasty Tories fault that Labour are about to be extinct in Scotland, and we wish they would stop..."
The message is for the English, not the Scots.
This is a message for english voters, not for scottish voters... it's to get UKIP wavierers back.
After a temporary hiccup from Jack's ARSE, Nick can sleep easy again.
It implies a degree of complacency. Either that or, of course, mendacity. But as we all know, Labour candidates are paragons of virtue, so it must be the former.
It's just going to be a negotiation. Of course iScot will pay something, and it really isn't the trump card they think it is: if they attempt to walk away from the debt, they will be declaring UDI with all the consequences that entails.
coffee on keyboard time.
So, if Nick Palmer wishes to post “the clock goes bong”, then it is at least more accurate for betting purposes.
"utter rubbish"
What a prat you are to make such an empty-minded response.
Morris Dancer responded with a reasonable point:
"..one suspects those people who see anti-SNP attacks as anti-Scottish would vigorously deny anti-Conservative attacks as being anti-English. "
Indeed they would, but my comment was primarily about PERCEPTION. Anti-SNP and Anti-Conservative may well for most people not be anti-Scottish or anti-English, but the perception they are may well be growing.