Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Only divorce can save the Union
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Only divorce can save the Union
Unprecedented is not what it used to be. The splintering of the party system and the increasing willingness of voters to shop around means that the previously extraordinary has become rather routine. To take one example, prior to this week, in no election since 1918 had more than three parties polled over a million votes each*; this year, six did so.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Could you imagine a Scottish Labour leader going to london after an election and trying to negotiate a coalition deal with a English labour leader ?
The union is dead, i don't see anyway back from this, without a fundamental reorganisation of the British state, that means the end of the current Westminister system, the same levels of devolution in all four countries and some kind of senate to handle the few things like defence that remain.
The political will to do so doesn't exist, some kind of half arsed patchup will be attempted instead.
Yes this is a good article but suffers badly from not understanding the clear perspective from Scotland.
For example, no-one who has experienced how much Jim Murphy is loathed by the great majority of people could possibly think he has any future in Scottish politics. Scottish Labour must gamble on the next generation and do it quickly. There is no real chance of having a serious impact on next year's elections but total implosion might be avoided if the old guard is sent packing now.
I was also very bearish on the LibDems. I think I was the lowest in the original competition entry with 17 seats - although pretty sure some brave souls went lower during the second iteration. That required saying there were long-held seats with large majorities - Bath, Cheltenham, Yeovil, Twickenham for example - that again required battling against the emotional brake that "surely, the LibDems can't go that low?". And there was some support for that scepticism in the shape of Lord Ashcroft's Q2 in the seat polls. I never understood the divergence between responses to Q1 and Q2. In the Torbay poll for example, the LibDems losing by a few thousand turned into a safe hold? Why?
The later regional South-West poll (for ITN?) was much more in line with Q1. And (correctly) devastating for the LibDems. It was also in line with reports of those who were actively campaigning. I reported back on here that the Tories were throwing their big names into defeating their erstwhile Coalition colleagues. (Why else was May going to Yeovil? I think JackW suggested it was a courtesy call - to have afternoon tea!) When asked about seats they had visited, folks on the Tory's Team 2015 Battle Bus told me (again, reported back here) that Yeovil was close and that Cheltenham was VERY much in play. These were a hard-core flying squad of seasoned canvassers, for a week at a time getting up at 6 and going to bed at 11 - they knew what they were doing, and knew what they were hearing on the ground.
This plays into another issue. Labour convinced themselves that Tory seats had been hollowed out of activists by defections to UKP. There was no-one to fight their wave upon wave of (union) activists, no-one left to fight a ground-war.
Wrong.
There were leaflet teams on the ground. But there was also a huge behind-the-scenes effort in the 40:40 seats to find the voters, profile the voters, send those voters targeted letters, get those voters to the polls - an effort like never before. I suspect posters here like IOS and Compouter had no idea of the scale of this operation. Even Nick Palmer seemed blithely unaware of the efforts being made in his own constituency.
If there is one lesson to take away from this general election, it is this: never, EVER under-estimate the desire of the Conservative Party to get into and hold onto power.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
There are also many more acts to this play.
The separatists thought they had won last year, and it didn't work out like that.
They thought they would be writing Ed Miliband's first budget, and it didn't work out like that.
Now Cameron is apparently offering FFA giving the Nats Hobson's choice of saying "no, we didn't really want it" or accepting a financial black hole they then have to explain to the Scots. Neither of those options seems on the surface likely to endear them
It would be interesting for Scotland to have FFA so they actually have responsibility for raising taxes rather than just spend spend spend
https://t.co/hXShcKGd22
And thanks once again Mr Herdson, for your thoughts. – Not sure if setting ‘Scottish parties free’ at this point would achieve a great deal quite honestly, apart from hastening an entirely independent Scotland, although I appreciate the concept. – The trouble surely would be that if affiliation with a mother party was actively discouraged, or broken entirely for the sake of nationalistic integrity, time and natural evolution would morph it into something else entirely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11591849&cc=11574941
Genius
I did a little digging on the old Scottish Unionist Party:
"Compared to the Conservative Party's pre-1886 record in Scotland, as well as the post-1965 Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, the 1912-1965 Scottish Unionist Party's electoral record stands out as a success"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland)
One key advantage they may have had over Labour was "Scottish" (trans "not London") - which they threw away.
I think Labour has the trickier problem. A party that is dominated by London membership cannot but have a different world view to that from the housing schemes encircling Glasgow and throughout the central belt - or a rather condescending view of what people there should think.......
For the Tories on the other hand, a 'small state' is a 'small state' either side of the border, as is a 'help up, not hand out'
Another tip at evens by @Tissue_Price
I understand Shadsy had a "sub-optimal" result yesterday which may be why he is trying to restock the coffers by offering 50/1 for Lucy Powell
The emblem of all that was wrong with Ed Miliband's efforts. When he makes somebody that dumb, that incoherent as his Spokesman, you can only shudder at the thought of just how bad he would have been as Prime Minister.
It is with huge relief that I can say, one last time:
Ed Mliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
(If Labour would like to have the pb.Tories on its selection panel, for next leader, we will be happy to give our two-penneth. We have a proven track record on assessing our opponents....)
For those among us with slightly hazy memories:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11593424/Election-2015-sketch-Look.-None-of-the-following-things-actually-happened.-Did-they.html
It is time for a fully federal UK with the scots organising their own politics. Any less will lead to full independence
Personally I think it was the last debate sinking in when ED denied that Labour had overspent and he was attacked from all sides..
It was is and always will be the economy stupid and Labour could not be trusted. History teaches us that the Tories have to clear up the mess left by Labour..
Of all the amazing and wonderful things that happened so far, that really would be the cherry on the icing of the delicious cake of GE2015
Eastleigh didn't surprise. There was polling done at the by-election showing many Kippers would return to the blue corner at the general.
Secondly, I feel quite sorry for Nick Clegg. From being a Golden Boy a few years ago he’s now in a dreadful place. Could well have been better for him personally if he’d lost. He could then have gone back to Brussels and or journalism and before long wounds would have healed. Now he’s got to sit in the HoC, presumably as Foreign Affairs spokesman, because unlike EdM he can’t be an anonymous back-bencher. He’ll be sitting on the Opposition side, looking at former Government “colleagues”, knowing that those colleagues planned to, and succeeded in defeating his party. And the House can be a cruel place sometimes.
Politics is a rough old trade, but Nick’s had it rougher than many.
How we shall miss him...
The other one I did well on as a result of Scotland was the Lab sub 250 seat band as a secondary effect.
Both the UKIP and LD performances looked too unpredictable so I took the strategy of backing the principle challenger in their "safest" seats and the party in their more longshot targets. I did well on this and surprised myself at how close Clacton was.
Nick Clegg 50/1
I'll be able to tell my grandchildren on election nights of the future that I stayed up for Ed Balls!
Fallon was always arms length from the coalition so can win back a lot of those former LD voters gone to kippers and Tories. His northern roots and social conservatism make him ideal for this, and he is a good tub thumper to rouse the rather battered troops. Despite being a strong Christian he voted for repeal of blasphemy laws.
No way will the LDs merge with Labour; though I think there is some merit in a joint ticket in Scotland with the Conservatives in the style of the National Liberals for Westminster elections.
How about some concessions and a new treaty then? No, wait, there is NO WAY that could ever happen, right?
Funny that, note to self ignore all that bullshine in future, its not worth the kdp's
Where's tim to point out that UKIP are only a threat to the Tories?
They've got to deal with it now that there's serious support for the idea of leaving if the EU cannot be reshaped in some regards. It won't need a massive amount of concession to keep us in but the direction of travel is important, as is the idea that certain subjects are off limits - such as welfare and health for non-working immigrants and the Human Rights laws that seem to care more about how we treat criminals than how we treat their victims.
I have no idea whst height he is. Size is not important
Yet the abrasive Liverpodlian Paul Nuttall is the Ukipper who might feel most vindicated tonight. Nuttall, deputy leader to Farage, was the leading architect of Ukip’s strategy to take on Labour in its northern heartlands; his embrace of pavement politics in the Oldham East and Saddleworth evolved into the model for Ukip in by-elections and then this general election
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/say-it-again-labour-should-beware-ukip
I think Labour's awesome "ground game" ran into the ground..
The professionalism of what MM describes below is really quite impressive for the 40/40 strategy. Crosby worked out what the dealbreakers were for swing voters and split them away from LD, UKIP and Lab.
Tony Blair one said "the Labour party will only have really changed when it has learnt to love Peter Mandleson". There is a lot of truth in this. Despite the enmity with Brown he masterminded the 2010 campaign and turned a defeat into a hung parliament. Labour needs to recover that sense of hunger to win.
UKIP have improved in their campaigning but have a long way to go. Farage still seems to think a campaign looks rather like a pub crawl. UKIP were strongest in rural Southern England and East Anglia and Northern post industrial cities, yet didn't seem to recognise that themselves. Candidate selection and vetting continue to be major problems. Both Great Grimsby and Boston had ridiculous candidates in winnable seats and the fiasco with Bird and Kerry Smith et al spoke volumes about internal feuding.
As to English regionalism, it's not even in the oven yet, let alone cooked. The only part of England that may want to go it alone is London (there'll surely be a "London First" candidate in the Mayoralty contest next year) and if they have a plausible left-of-centre platform they could even split the vote and let another Tory in!
I wonder where all this leaves Carswell - he'll surely not be too happy that his party couldn't break through, I'd expect him to behave in the Commons as a Tory in all but name. Cameron must be happy to have one of what could be the awkward squad sitting opposite him rather than behind though!
in both cases the economic numbers don't stack up.
As Labour tries to explain its defeat, look out for the following untruths
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/10-delusions-about-labour-defeat-watch-out
What does Scottish Labour believe in (other than stopping the tories which is no longer sufficient)? Is it different from what English Labour believes? I think as long as Labour was run by a north London intellectual it probably was but that is no longer the case. Would Scotland have such problems with an Andy Burnham led Labour party? I think not. A Chuka Umunna led party might be more difficult.
Under Salmond there was plenty of room to the left of the SNP for Labour. Under Sturgeon it is so much more difficult. The absurdity was demonstrated by Murphy's ridiculous "1000 extra nurses" pledge. Whatever the SNP promised he would deliver more.
We have a situation where our two largest parties in Scotland think public spending is the answer to all problems, that the job of the state is to regulate and control any private sector that remains into the ground and that those who are skilful and able enough to survive such hostility are simply a resource to be plucked to feed the voracious state. It seems inconsistent with such a mindset that there should be two parties like that.
For the tories I think having an independent party would be a waste of time. For the Lib Dems this election may well prove to be an extinction event. I really don't see them playing a major role in Scottish politics again for a very long time, if ever. To personalise again a Ruth Davidson led Tory party gives them very little room to operate in. The above mindset also surely creates some opportunities. The 2016 election will be interesting.
It looks pretty clear that his 'resignation' was insincere and only done because he'd said he would. Unlike Miliband and Clegg, whose resignations were real, I think it's pretty near 100% certain that Farage will just take the summer off.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/481.html
It worth remembering that as both parties scrabble around in the ruins. If they don't, 2020 could easily be worse than 2015.
One thing missing from all their analysis will be that Labour lost because they have forgotten their roots as the party of the working man and become too dominated by the metropolitan elite - the elite that includes all the journalists and their total lack of self-awareness!
Since you're in the odd position of being a winner\loser ( Tory but Scotland ) I'd be interested in how you see the position in Scotland develop for the blues. Is it hunker down and wait for the tide to turn against the Nats when the hubris wears off or is there something now the Tories should be doing ?
For me the big disappointment of the night was not getting Berwickshire, 2 seats and bigger than SLAB would have been tremendous.
Genuine LOL on reading this.
If UKIP have any sense they'll sit on their hands for a bit and see what Labour do in their own leadership election.
There's a huge opportunity to convert the Northern working-class second places into wins if Labour stay with the metropolitans, say under Unumma as leader - if UKIP themselves then choose a Nuttall rather than a Farage.
Whereas if Labour go working class northerner with say Andy Burnham or Dan Jarvis, then a Farage type will be what's best for them in the coming years.
Agreed. There is no room for another left of centre party in Scotland.
If the election had been under a true PR system the seat totals would be as follows (So far as I can work them out !)
Gov't:
Con 241
UKIP 83
Opposition benches:
Labour 199
Lib Dem 52
SNP 31
Green 25
DUP 4
Plaid 4
UUP 3
SDLP 2
Lady Hermon 1
Abstain:
SF 4
Speaker 1
Con-UKIP coalition, tacit support from DUP, UUP.
Nigel Farage.
Let me get you started.
1. George Osborne is a strategic genius......
"But we can still rise now,
And be the nation again,"
Adopted for more and more sports events its theme of aiming to be a nation has IMHO become the goal of a growing % of the population.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8449939.stm
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STOOPID !
This is why the next Labour leader must NOT be any member of Gordo's cabinet (Sorry Andy), and their very first statement as leader must be "Yes, we spent way too much money"
Have Labour fixed the rules so the sensible choice for leader can't be undone by Len McLuskey?
This post sponsored by ToriesForBurnham™ and brought to you by NewsSense™ Inc.
Being doorstepped by DavidL, NickP or isam could be a pleasant experience that changed my opinion. Being harangued by Victoria Ayling or Owen Jones on the doorstep could easily push my opinion the other way.
For Lab I did some canvassing in 1997 in Loughborough and Leics NW (both marginal seats at the time) but some of the people who were canvassing with me were probably doing the party harm! I remember one Millie Tant lookalike festooned with CND badges not letting voters have a say herself. Wellington supposedly said of his troops once: "I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but by God they terrify me"
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STOOPID !
This is why the next Labour leader must NOT be any member of Gordo's cabinet (Sorry Andy), and their very first statement as leader must be "Yes, we spent way too much money"
Have Labour fixed the rules so the sensible choice for leader can't be undone by Len McLuskey?
This post sponsored by ToriesForBurnham™ and brought to you by NewsSense™ Inc.
Please let it be Burnham
A majority, Vince Cable, Ed Balls, three party leader out and Berwickshire?.....it was only 328 votes out....but I think the gods decided we were having enough fun for one evening......
http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/constituencies/S14000008
Please, please, please can we have Bercow too?
I promise I'll be good...