Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
North and Leith looks like a potential target next time round, I don't think there is a seat in Glasgow they can possibly win, mind. Mind you alot of these places will have had some Tory tacticals in a failed attempt to hold the seat. They'll vote Conservative next time round.
DanJarvis is scathing on Lab campaign: "More ppl have walked on the moon than the number of Labour MPs elected across the SW, SE and East."
Labour need to choose a leader who can speak to people in the areas that did not vote Labour this time. The danger is that they will choose another leader who fits in with their current self-image. That is an election-losing strategy.
Liz Kendall or Stella Creasy fit that bill
Labour might well of course think that putting up a woman might for some strange reason help and embarrass Cameron. But they could be very very wide of the mark there and in any event Cameron will not be running in 2020. Frankly I do not think Labour have a clue what to do and every one of their candidates has an awful lot to prove. For me there is a big big question mark over the capabilities of Cooper. The rest? Burnham is tarnished and the others have very thin credentials.
Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
Unless those SNP members really screw things up (which is unlikely) you'd have to bet on most of them retaining their seats through first time incumbency. I can't see Labour getting many of the seats they need for a majority next time from Scotland, assuming it remains part of the UK.
In 2007 Angus MacNeil, a married SNP MP was caught out by a three in a bed romp (heavy petting no actual sex) with two teenagers (17 and 18) in a hotel room. He is MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar where it is still illegal for any shop to open on a Sunday, it is virtually impossible to work on a Sunday and most people don't try. It is the most conservative (small C) place in Scotland.
In 2010 he was re-elected with an increased Majority, up nearly 25% (2.4ppts) on his 2005 Majority.
Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
North and Leith looks like a potential target next time round, I don't think there is a seat in Glasgow they can possibly win, mind. Mind you alot of these places will have had some Tory tacticals in a failed attempt to hold the seat. They'll vote Conservative next time round.
Depending when the markets open, SNP 0-5 seats at 2020 Westminster Elections could be profitable.
Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
Unless those SNP members really screw things up (which is unlikely) you'd have to bet on most of them retaining their seats through first time incumbency. I can't see Labour getting many of the seats they need for a majority next time from Scotland, assuming it remains part of the UK.
In 2007 Angus MacNeil, a married SNP MP was caught out by a three in a bed romp (heavy petting no actual sex) with two teenagers (17 and 18) in a hotel room. He is MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar where it is still illegal for any shop to open on a Sunday, it is virtually impossible to work on a Sunday and most people don't try. It is the most conservative (small C) place in Scotland.
In 2010 he was re-elected with an increased Majority, up nearly 25% (2.4ppts) on his 2005 Majority.
Well.. he didn't "screw things up", by your own admission...
You can pull up a list of poster's old comments? Crap. There goes my plan to pretend I predicted this all along.
"Midwinter For every one of me there are 10 PB Tories. And the difference is I am going to be right. Oh for the days when everyone was so certain on here that the campaign would tear Ed apart. LOL LOL LOL"
I think IOS may not be delighting us a little less in the future "LOL LOL LOL". quite.
I certainly think these sorts of comments need to be borne in mind when people are considering the current overly bouyant Tory mood that abounds here at present - sure some might be counting chickens before they have hatched re future Tory prospects, but it is at least just after the last batch of chickens did hatch much better than expected.
Does anybody know what the latest SNP policy on voting on English laws is? When you have 56 seats and a government with a wafer-thin overall majority, it suddenly becomes rather important.
Also does anybody know if, in the EU referendum, ministers and shadow ministers who disagree with the official line will be allowed to campaign openly as I understand happened in 1975? Or will they have to toe the party line?
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
Does anybody know what the latest SNP policy on voting on English laws is? When you have 56 seats and a government with a wafer-thin overall majority, it suddenly becomes rather important.
Well they had been planning to vote on English laws if they felt it necessary to 'help' England and a Labour government I believe, so presumably will do so still albeit to prevent legislation rather than pass it. Maintaining a convention on not voting on English matters was never really going to be an option once they were on course to win dozens of seats, it would be silly to not use that influence.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
To an extent.
It will be for each MP to decide to vote for or against a pay rise. And if others vote for a rise, to then decide whether to take that rise, or for example give it over to a charity.
The reckoning with their voters will come the next election.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
On the issue of the EU referendum, I am under the impression that politicians within the Conservative party will be allowed to campaign openly for their own preference. I cannot remember which Conservative MP it was being interviewed on SkyNews yesterday, but they were openly talking of both camps in an EU referendum campaign garnering cross party support.
Does anybody know what the latest SNP policy on voting on English laws is? When you have 56 seats and a government with a wafer-thin overall majority, it suddenly becomes rather important.
Also does anybody know if, in the EU referendum, ministers and shadow ministers who disagree with the official line will be allowed to campaign openly as I understand happened in 1975? Or will they have to toe the party line?
Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
North and Leith looks like a potential target next time round, I don't think there is a seat in Glasgow they can possibly win, mind. Mind you alot of these places will have had some Tory tacticals in a failed attempt to hold the seat. They'll vote Conservative next time round.
The Conservative vote actually went up by 2k in Edinburgh N&L. Also E. Lothian was similar with an increase in the Tory vote. I would guess that those are 2 of the most likely places for Labour to re-gain in 2020. In fact they are possibly the only 2 along with Paisley S. and Renfrew. E.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
That hardly matters. The two countries being separate in all but strict legal terms will eventually lead to a legal split as well, even if it is dragged out. That Cameron has the legal authority to make all sorts of decisions regarding Scotland is not in doubt, but in reality he cannot do so politically given the rampant victory of the SNP there, so in effect England and Scotland are becoming like separate entities already. Another Westminster back referendum, a Holyrood only backed referendum, or none at all doesn't change the de facto situation, and I imagine the SNP won't mind what route or how long it takes for the legal situation to catch up.
I believe Somaliland is still legally part of Somalia as far as the international community is concerned, but the reality is very different. Scotland won't be that separate, but separate it would be in such a situation.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
True and most No voters will abstain. I think something similar happened in Catalonia last year IIRC.
Dair Given that following even the implementation of the Smith Commision proposals most domestic policy in Scotland will be decided at Holyrood anyway what Cameron does at Westminster will be largely irrelevant to Scottish domestic politics, of course Westminster would also have to agree to allow a second referendum too (see Spain and Catalonia). The only likely circumstances are Brexit and Scottish In as I said, LIAMT is right
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
That hardly matters. The two countries being separate in all but strict legal terms will eventually lead to a legal split as well, even if it is dragged out. That Cameron has the legal authority to make all sorts of decisions regarding Scotland is not in doubt, but in reality he cannot do so politically given the rampant victory of the SNP there, so in effect England and Scotland are becoming like separate entities already. Another Westminster back referendum, a Holyrood only backed referendum, or none at all doesn't change the de facto situation, and I imagine the SNP won't mind what route or how long it takes for the legal situation to catch up.
I believe Somaliland is still legally part of Somalia as far as the international community is concerned, but the reality is very different. Scotland won't be that separate, but separate it would be in such a situation.
The difference is that in a referendum, the result of which was agreed by both sides to be binding for a generation, Scots independence was rejected by the people of Scotland. There is no analogy with Somalia, save in the wildest dreams of the most quixotic nationalists. It is perfectly true that the Westminster Parliament by convention will not legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, the UK Government is committed to substantial further devolution of competences to the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't change the fact that the Scottish Parliament can't legislate on reserved matters, or the fact that the Westminster Parliament retains the political, moral and legal authority to legislate for Scotland.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
True and most No voters will abstain. I think something similar happened in Catalonia last year IIRC.
It did. Everyone ignored the result. Even the Catalan government.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
True and most No voters will abstain. I think something similar happened in Catalonia last year IIRC.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
And how will they enforce its results?
They obviously can't, but it would be used to maintain tension with Westminster, and to cast a vote against welfare cuts, denial of democracy, etc. etc. etc.
"David Cameron sued Scotland to deny you a referendum, while he forces a Tory referendum on Scotland".
That hardly matters. The two countries being separate in all but strict legal terms will eventually lead to a legal split as well, even if it is dragged out. That Cameron has the legal authority to make all sorts of decisions regarding Scotland is not in doubt, but in reality he cannot do so politically given the rampant victory of the SNP there, so in effect England and Scotland are becoming like separate entities already. Another Westminster back referendum, a Holyrood only backed referendum, or none at all doesn't change the de facto situation, and I imagine the SNP won't mind what route or how long it takes for the legal situation to catch up.
I believe Somaliland is still legally part of Somalia as far as the international community is concerned, but the reality is very different. Scotland won't be that separate, but separate it would be in such a situation.
The difference is that in a referendum, the result of which was agreed by both sides to be binding for a generation, Scots independence was rejected by the people of Scotland. There is no analogy with Somalia, save in the wildest dreams of the most quixotic nationalists. It is perfectly true that the Westminster Parliament by convention will not legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, the Government is committed to substantial further devolution of competences to the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't change the fact that the Scottish Parliament can't legislate on reserved matters, or the fact that the Westminster Parliament retains the political, moral and legal authority to legislate for Scotland.
My analogy were merely to point out that legal reality does not always reflect actual reality, not to make direct comparison. I'm a depressed unionist after all. And if Scotland unilaterally acts to separate itself as much as it can, or the political realities mean the UK government has to in many ways treat it as if it is, then they are already being treated like another country - that being the case, legal separation is only a matter of time.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Just messing with the spreadsheet to see what the result might have been under AV The Tory plus UKIP vote was over 50 percent in 356 constituencies Tory plus 85 percent of Ukip vote over 50 percent in 323 seats. I
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
Put in perspective this would be equivalent to 600 people joining the SNP between the First Indyref and the following Sunday. IIRC it was nearly 20,000 actually joined the SNP.
Will the next Indyref be called the Abellio Indyref then?
The EU referendum is rather different from most. In the campaign for the original Common Market referendum, the government of the day (PM Edward Heath) lied to the electorate about the implications of voting Yes.
I rarely use the word 'lie', but in this case it is justified. The Conservative party's divisions over Europe is a legacy bequeathed by Mr Heath.
Just messing with the spreadsheet to see what the result might have been under AV The Tory plus UKIP vote was over 50 percent in 356 constituencies Tory plus 85 percent of Ukip vote over 50 percent in 323 seats. I
Naturally when Ukip seemed to leave Tories alone and take dents out of Labour.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Of the 40 seats Labour lost to the SNP, 24 of them would require a pro-Labour swing of more than 10% to win back. 10 would require between 8 and 10%, just 6 below 8%.
That's true. It's also true that those seats had swings of up to 39 per cent this time. Either they are now hugely volatile, or there has been a long-term realignment that increases the likelihood that the UK's Labour Party will never, ever win them back.
Unless those SNP members really screw things up (which is unlikely) you'd have to bet on most of them retaining their seats through first time incumbency. I can't see Labour getting many of the seats they need for a majority next time from Scotland, assuming it remains part of the UK.
In 2007 Angus MacNeil, a married SNP MP was caught out by a three in a bed romp (heavy petting no actual sex) with two teenagers (17 and 18) in a hotel room. He is MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar where it is still illegal for any shop to open on a Sunday, it is virtually impossible to work on a Sunday and most people don't try. It is the most conservative (small C) place in Scotland.
In 2010 he was re-elected with an increased Majority, up nearly 25% (2.4ppts) on his 2005 Majority.
What I liked best about that story was the fact the events took place after a ceilidh in that hotbed of vice and corruption - The Orkneys!
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
Any such "poll" will have no more legal status than an opinion poll and will be ignored.
The SNP do not require an informal plebescite, the matter has already been settled constitutionally. A mandate from a Holyrood election backed by a Referendum Bill at Holyrood will have to be honoured by Westminster.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
Sturgeon kept saying the GE wasn't about independence.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
Sturgeon kept saying the GE wasn't about independence.
Of course she did. She knew it didn't have to be, the GE creates the overwhelming platform to create the situation for the next IndyRef though.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
Any such "poll" will have no more legal status than an opinion poll and will be ignored.
The SNP do not require an informal plebescite, the matter has already been settled constitutionally. A mandate from a Holyrood election backed by a Referendum Bill at Holyrood will have to be honoured by Westminster.
Yes, that's fair enough. I think we are talking about one put in motion before the next Holyrood elections.
Been reading the latest speaker-related story and can't stop giggling. What a terrible specimen of a human being I must be (though there must be many of us, for our kind seems to be the target market that online newspaper sidebars are built around) - what vicious, vicarious pleasure I take from the follies of our "superiors" in the Ridiculoushment Classes. Relationships broken, families in turmoil, and all I can do is gaze at my screen and laugh at the abysmal taste of frankly everyone involved. Do remind me never to cross the public eye....
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
Do you think if they changed their tune tomorrow and said they want another referendum and quickly as well, that they would lose more than marginal amounts of the support they just gained? I don't.
My analogy were merely to point out that legal reality does not always reflect actual reality, not to make direct comparison. I'm a depressed unionist after all. And if Scotland unilaterally acts to separate itself as much as it can, or the political realities mean the UK government has to in many ways treat it as if it is, then they are already being treated like another country - that being the case, legal separation is only a matter of time.
Again, this is nonsense. The Scottish Government will continue to act lawfully or it will cease to hold office. No one in Scotland has the appetite to win independence by Irish means.
If suppressed by UK courts, I'm sure the SNP's 100,000 members will continue to organise a poll regardless.
Any such "poll" will have no more legal status than an opinion poll and will be ignored.
The SNP do not require an informal plebescite, the matter has already been settled constitutionally. A mandate from a Holyrood election backed by a Referendum Bill at Holyrood will have to be honoured by Westminster.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
There's little point changing the subject. Your point was untrue. No member of the SNP said that the result was binding for a generation and that another Referendum would not be held for a generation.
Additionally it is not the SNP's gift to give. It is Scotland which decides and there is already significant demand for another Referendum (BBC poll had 48% wanting another within 5 years). Support is also growing, nearer 49% than 45% today.
Realpolitik will kick in on the Unionists part as well. Cameron can't stop it.
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
Not very democratic are you ?
I'm not the one saying that Scotland should be denied the right to vote on constitutional issues.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Put in perspective this would be equivalent to 600 people joining the SNP between the First Indyref and the following Sunday. IIRC it was nearly 20,000 actually joined the SNP.
Will the next Indyref be called the Abellio Indyref then?
Abellio Greater Anglia "Metro" service from London Liverpool Street to Stratford, Ilford, Romford and Brentwood is to be officially rebranded CrossRail on 31st May. (though the new tunnels from Stratford to Paddington won't open till 2018!)
I don't feel pity for your refusal to accept the momentum of history. But it is quite bemusing when Loyalists keep bleating this "there won't be a referendum".
It is extremely doubtful whether another referendum on Scots independence can be held lawfully without the consent of the Westminster Parliament, where the Conservatives have a majority. There is nothing undemocratic about refusing that consent when a referendum was held on the subject last year, and that referendum was agreed by both sides to have settled the matter for a generation. If the Scottish Parliament enacts a further Referendum Bill, then expect lengthy and probably successful challenge in the courts.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
Not very democratic are you ?
I'm not the one saying that Scotland should be denied the right to vote on constitutional issues.
You weren't. You had a chance. Come back in 40 years.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
Well, the target audience of this piece is not aspirational voters but Labour members, who do care about these things, believe it or not. It is like saying Cameron should abandon the Europe issue because the average voter doesn't care, but of course he needs to give his party members positive reasons to keep supporting his government.
My preliminary figures show that Labour needs a swing of 8.72% to win an overall majority on the current boundaries, which is equivalent to a vote share lead of 10.84% on UNS.
The magical 94th seat they need to win the majority is Watford.
Oddly enough, target no. 93 is Thanet South, and incidentally no. 96 is Southport of all places.
Another observation on the 1000 year Reich Tory, self congratulatory, mutual back slapping bonhomie currently pervading this site.
It's been a few days since an unexpected victory - my observation is self congratulatory bonhomie and wild predictions of never ending success would be quite normal as an initial reaction, and not likely to persist for very long after the election once the challenges ahead start to be faced.
I would say that had Labour won (in coalition or arrangement), there'd be plenty of self congratulatory Labour commentary about how the Tories would never win a majority ever again, except we already saw plenty of that in the past 5 years after the failure to manage it in 2010.
The Tory optimism cycle will end in good time - only if it appears the Tory leadership are buying into it should the party be really worried.
Of course I have massively enjoyed the past few days. Mostly for the relief that I believe the UK stands a real chance of cementing the economic gains of the past 5 years, instead of returning to piss-it-up-a-wall Labour. And of course, for making a few posters here eat crow.
But I am sanguine about the next five years. There is one politically toxic event that has to happen, which is the unwinding of historically low interest rates. The better the Govt. manages the economy, the sooner this will come. And when interest rates get to even 3%, there is going to be some squealing....
You can pull up a list of poster's old comments? Crap. There goes my plan to pretend I predicted this all along.
"Midwinter For every one of me there are 10 PB Tories. And the difference is I am going to be right. Oh for the days when everyone was so certain on here that the campaign would tear Ed apart. LOL LOL LOL"
I think IOS may not be delighting us a little less in the future "LOL LOL LOL". quite.
I certainly think these sorts of comments need to be borne in mind when people are considering the current overly bouyant Tory mood that abounds here at present - sure some might be counting chickens before they have hatched re future Tory prospects, but it is at least just after the last batch of chickens did hatch much better than expected.
I do not think the Tories are overly buoyant. There has just been a remarkable election result (more so because the polls suggested otherwise) so Tories are entitled to be pleased. Labour are now arguing amongst themselves it's true and that is amusing. They find themselves on the one hand with a mountain to climb and on the other on the edge of a precipice. The tories have a long and pot holed road ahead of them. I have said the Tories should not worry about Labour but get on with what appears front of them and (hopefully) solve the problems as they arise.
You will find absolutely no-one from the SNP saying the matter is "settled for a generation". Try not to get confused by the media reports which distort and lie.
They have certainly changed their tune since from what they said before the referendum. The nationalists lost. They cannot now seek to change the basis on which the vote was conducted.
If only they couldn't. The SNP landslide would seem to suggest the public back them if they want to do just that.
Sturgeon kept saying the GE wasn't about independence.
She said it was not a mandate for Independence or a Referendum.
But the idea that anything in Scottish Politics does not have an aspect of the Independence debate involved would be quite stupid.
The SNP do not require an informal plebescite, the matter has already been settled constitutionally. A mandate from a Holyrood election backed by a Referendum Bill at Holyrood will have to be honoured by Westminster.
In 2011, there had not been a referendum on Scottish independence within the previous two years whose result was agreed to be binding for a generation. No "constitutional" precedent has been set by the Edinburgh Agreement. Cameron appears to have ruled out a second referendum. He was within his rights to do so and was right to do so.
'I certainly think these sorts of comments need to be borne in mind when people are considering the current overly bouyant Tory mood that abounds here at present - sure some might be counting chickens before they have hatched re future Tory prospects, but it is at least just after the last batch of chickens did hatch much better than expected.'
A bit rich for you to be lecturing us when you were one of the daily cheerleaders telling us that a Labour win was a mere formality.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
Its the hyperbole..."vandalized our NHS"...
A good example is the A&E waiting times...there is an issue with supply, demand, GP, out of hours care etc etc etc, and it does need a smarter plan...but my god the OTT response to 90 out of 100 people being seen in 4hrs...we aren't talking about people waiting 3 years for an operation, we are talking about the 10 of the least serious cases having to wait a bit longer.
Any shown how Labour haven't vandalized the NHS in Wales, oh no siree...
I would have been extremely responsive if Labour had tried to sell a working smarter plan, not just well lets throw some more money at it.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
My analogy were merely to point out that legal reality does not always reflect actual reality, not to make direct comparison. I'm a depressed unionist after all. And if Scotland unilaterally acts to separate itself as much as it can, or the political realities mean the UK government has to in many ways treat it as if it is, then they are already being treated like another country - that being the case, legal separation is only a matter of time.
Again, this is nonsense. The Scottish Government will continue to act lawfully or it will cease to hold office. No one in Scotland has the appetite to win independence by Irish means.
And the Westminster Government will also need to continue to act lawfully including adhering to the precedent it has already set for a Scottish Referendum. That's how unwritten constitutions work.
Now if Cameron had get "once in a generation" into the Edinburgh Agreement, they could viably block it. He didn't. So he can't.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
I would argue that MPs and ministers are underpaid. Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job. For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
True and false.
The way I read it Jarvis was distinguishing between the "True Believers" (the kind of people who'd get worked up over these issues...the kind of people you need going round knocking on doors) and the Unsympathetic Uncarers, who clearly couldn't give enough hoots about them to avoid somehow putting a cross by some party other than Labour.
He seemed to me to be arguing that the True Believers could get the Unsympathetic Uncarers to vote for them, so long as they could show that the True Believers could life make better for the Unsympathetic Uncarers too, without the need for getting them to swallow all the moralising and empathy. It is an acknowledgement that virtue signalling was a failure. (Given the venue of the publication, Jarvis clearly felt the need to virtue-signal to his readership, to get them onside for long enough to listen to him. He wasn't saying that it would have worked on the wider electorate.)
On the other hand, this attitude is very different from saying "our party is open to youse all". It requires the TBs at the helm, and those who lack the faith are simply a convenient and necessary source of votes to bring the TBs to power. There didn't seem to be an inkling in his piece that those people not obsessed with identity politics or certain components of social justice* in any way belonged within the fold, or had a voice that should speak for itself in the inner sanctum of power rather than their anticipated needs simply being "represented" there by eagle-eyed progressive-striped polling analysts.
* I want to give a gold star to the first Labour leadership candidate who attacks their own party's previous record in government of imposing a "bedroom tax", call it by that name though they did not, on private tenants ... if they were to query the hypocrisy at the last election of attacking the Tories for imposing it on public housing tenants without pledging to roll back their own previous mistake then they get a flashing gold star with fairy lights.
'I certainly think these sorts of comments need to be borne in mind when people are considering the current overly bouyant Tory mood that abounds here at present - sure some might be counting chickens before they have hatched re future Tory prospects, but it is at least just after the last batch of chickens did hatch much better than expected.'
A bit rich for you to be lecturing us when you were one of the daily cheerleaders telling us that a Labour win was a mere formality.
I certainly was, and a right wally I've been proven to be - if you look back over my recent comments you will see me admit to that multiple times as well as mocking my own now proven to be foolish certainty of the result. I was including my own foolish comments in 'these sorts of comments' needing to be borne in mind - though since I wanted Cameron to win I at least am spared the indignity of having mocked Tories who thought they would win with partisan bile on my part. I was just wrong is all.
Also, you appear to have misunderstood the point of the post you are quoting, which was that while some Tories may be getting a bit overexcited at their unexpected victory, that is normal and not unreasonable given that unexpected victory, whereas the partisan mockery of Labour supporters beforehand had, it has since transpired, no basis whatsoever, so Labour supporters disliking the Tory exuberance now should bear that in mind.
Furthermore, since I was so comprehensively wrong, and on the IndyRef, people should watch my views very carefully as a useful barometer of what will definitely not happen in the future - for the record I think Scottish Independence is inevitable in 5-10 years, and may happen sooner. I hope to also be proven very wrong about that.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
I would argue that MPs and ministers are underpaid. Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job. For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
I would always keep teachers as far away as possible from education policy. Or at least those who seek to become leaders in the teaching profession. There are far too many concerned with teachers and far too few concerned with the pupils.
Twitter Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
Conceivably, all 8 could say no and they have to draft in a Lord.
Of course this would have the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting that while the British Public has given the Lib Dems their Jotters, they remain a heavy presence in the Lords.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
I presume the poster is referring to this...with the 3rd and 4th paragraph the important bit.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
Twitter Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
Conceivably, all 8 could say no and they have to draft in a Lord.
Of course this would have the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting that while the British Public has given the Lib Dems their Jotters, they remain a heavy presence in the Lords.
If Lamb says no it is Carmichael or Farron. Probably TIm.
Twitter Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
Conceivably, all 8 could say no and they have to draft in a Lord.
Of course this would have the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting that while the British Public has given the Lib Dems their Jotters, they remain a heavy presence in the Lords.
The SNP managed pretty well with a leader not in Westminster.
Twitter Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
Conceivably, all 8 could say no and they have to draft in a Lord.
Of course this would have the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting that while the British Public has given the Lib Dems their Jotters, they remain a heavy presence in the Lords.
If Lamb says no it is Carmichael or Farron. Probably TIm.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
Because it works in a sense. You could build up a perception of a nation on the verge of starvation, with evil toffs grinding down the poor. There are those out there who think that we have hordes of people on benefits starving. Of course it is rubbish, with obesity levels being highest for those at the bottom of the income percentiles.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
I would argue that MPs and ministers are underpaid. Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job. For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
MPs should get £100k a year. How much does a TD get in Ireland ? Basically, we do not value public work in this country.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
And the Westminster Government will also need to continue to act lawfully including adhering to the precedent it has already set for a Scottish Referendum. That's how unwritten constitutions work.
Now if Cameron had get "once in a generation" into the Edinburgh Agreement, they could viably block it. He didn't. So he can't.
No precedent had been set. Even if it had, it would be a moral not a legal one. Even if the SNP win a majority in Holyrood in 2016 on a commitment to hold another referendum, no one will be able to get a mandatory order against the Prime Minister to submit a draft order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to both Parliaments, or to introduce legislation at Westminster. They would be laughed out of court. By contrast, any litigant can and will obtain an interdict against the Scottish Government prohibiting the holding of an illegal referendum.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
I presume the poster is referring to this...with the 3rd and 4th paragraph the important bit.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
I presume the poster is referring to this...with the 3rd and 4th paragraph the important bit.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
I would argue that MPs and ministers are underpaid. Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job. For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
MPs should get £100k a year. How much does a TD get in Ireland ? Basically, we do not value public work in this country.
I would agree with that, it seems a more appropriate amount.
Just a question. As SNP have the power, why not just legislate to reduce ministerial pay rather than go through this voluntary repayment business?
My understanding is that Holyrood only controls basic MSP Salaries. The Ministerial portion of the Salary is linked to Westminster Ministerial Salaries. Somehow the Gordo Brown pay cut for PM didn't transfer to the FM. So they don't have the power to do anything other than repay the extra.
The SNP do not require an informal plebescite, the matter has already been settled constitutionally. A mandate from a Holyrood election backed by a Referendum Bill at Holyrood will have to be honoured by Westminster.
In 2011, there had not been a referendum on Scottish independence within the previous two years whose result was agreed to be binding for a generation. No "constitutional" precedent has been set by the Edinburgh Agreement. Cameron appears to have ruled out a second referendum. He was within his rights to do so and was right to do so.
In theory, the Scottish government backed by Holyrood could call a referendum any time. The UK government doesn't have to abide by the result, of course. But it would create constitutional bad feeling. Another issue for the Scots to blame the English.
If such a situation were to happen, no matter its constitutional validity, it would be difficult for the UK government to ignore.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
That was a result of Gordon Brown's gift to David Cameron. Gordo decided to drop the PMs pay by 25% just before leaving office.
It is still astonishing that we have so many in the public sector who are paid more than the PM.
Supply and demand, it's a free market. Look at all the people who want to be PM. There's no shortage, so why pay up?
This is true, but only because small-minded voters and candidate rules needlessly restrict the talent pool to inexperienced people. In a more rational system a high salary would be worth paying to attract talented, experienced leaders like Bill Clinton or Angela Merkel.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 just for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Jarvis's second paragraph in his LabourList piece suggests he doesn't actually get it at all.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
Because it works in a sense. You could build up a perception of a nation on the verge of starvation, with evil toffs grinding down the poor. There are those out there who think that we have hordes of people on benefits starving. Of course it is rubbish, with obesity levels being highest for those at the bottom of the income percentiles.
At heart it is because the Primrose Hill set which run Labour have no idea what matters to the working man or woman who is supposed to be their core voter. And I mean the non-Aspirational working man or woman.
They don't care about Tory aspiration policy. But equally they don't care that much about benefits and crack downs on the non-working poor. They're interested in the idea of a fair days work for a fair days pay.
The Minimum Wage was a perfect opportunity to enforce this and entrench Labour's core vote. But it was forgotten about while Labour continued to try and pander to the aspirational classes. They pooched it with Working and Child Tax Credits, effectively a subsidy for low wage employers.
The Primrose Hill set will never understand this because they are not of the non-Aspirational working class. They think that these people want hand outs. They don't, they just want a fair days pay for a fair days work, to get by in reasonable comfort based on the fruits of their own labour.
Comments
Frankly I do not think Labour have a clue what to do and every one of their candidates has an awful lot to prove. For me there is a big big question mark over the capabilities of Cooper. The rest? Burnham is tarnished and the others have very thin credentials.
Lets leave them to it.
In 2010 he was re-elected with an increased Majority, up nearly 25% (2.4ppts) on his 2005 Majority.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Does anybody know what the latest SNP policy on voting on English laws is? When you have 56 seats and a government with a wafer-thin overall majority, it suddenly becomes rather important.
Also does anybody know if, in the EU referendum, ministers and shadow ministers who disagree with the official line will be allowed to campaign openly as I understand happened in 1975? Or will they have to toe the party line?
It will be for each MP to decide to vote for or against a pay rise. And if others vote for a rise, to then decide whether to take that rise, or for example give it over to a charity.
The reckoning with their voters will come the next election.
I would guess that those are 2 of the most likely places for Labour to re-gain in 2020. In fact they are possibly the only 2 along with Paisley S. and Renfrew. E.
I believe Somaliland is still legally part of Somalia as far as the international community is concerned, but the reality is very different. Scotland won't be that separate, but separate it would be in such a situation.
"David Cameron sued Scotland to deny you a referendum, while he forces a Tory referendum on Scotland".
U OK hun?
On that point is Boris taking both salaries this year or just one?http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/18/scottish-parliament-votes-pay-rise-msps-nicola-sturgeon
Just messing with the spreadsheet to see what the result might have been under AV
The Tory plus UKIP vote was over 50 percent in 356 constituencies
Tory plus 85 percent of Ukip vote over 50 percent in 323 seats.
I
I rarely use the word 'lie', but in this case it is justified. The Conservative party's divisions over Europe is a legacy bequeathed by Mr Heath.
On Thursday we asked people to choose between us and a government that has presided over a food bank epidemic, inflicted the Bedroom Tax on the most vulnerable, vandalised our National Health Service and failed in its core promise to balance our nation’s books.
Aspirational voters don't give a flying f*ck about food banks or the bedroom tax. Labour need to get over their obsession with virtue signalling.
Additionally it is not the SNP's gift to give. It is Scotland which decides and there is already significant demand for another Referendum (BBC poll had 48% wanting another within 5 years). Support is also growing, nearer 49% than 45% today.
Realpolitik will kick in on the Unionists part as well. Cameron can't stop it.
The magical 94th seat they need to win the majority is Watford.
Oddly enough, target no. 93 is Thanet South, and incidentally no. 96 is Southport of all places.
But I am sanguine about the next five years. There is one politically toxic event that has to happen, which is the unwinding of historically low interest rates. The better the Govt. manages the economy, the sooner this will come. And when interest rates get to even 3%, there is going to be some squealing....
Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago
Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
Labour are now arguing amongst themselves it's true and that is amusing. They find themselves on the one hand with a mountain to climb and on the other on the edge of a precipice.
The tories have a long and pot holed road ahead of them. I have said the Tories should not worry about Labour but get on with what appears front of them and (hopefully) solve the problems as they arise.
But the idea that anything in Scottish Politics does not have an aspect of the Independence debate involved would be quite stupid.
'Nicola Sturgeon vows not to take full salary after Holyrood vote makes her top-paid British politician
Nicola Sturgeon is eligible to a salary of £144,687 from next month but a ministerial pay freeze means she will only take £135,605.'
http://tinyurl.com/nwewebg
'I certainly think these sorts of comments need to be borne in mind when people are considering the current overly bouyant Tory mood that abounds here at present - sure some might be counting chickens before they have hatched re future Tory prospects, but it is at least just after the last batch of chickens did hatch much better than expected.'
A bit rich for you to be lecturing us when you were one of the daily cheerleaders telling us that a Labour win was a mere formality.
A good example is the A&E waiting times...there is an issue with supply, demand, GP, out of hours care etc etc etc, and it does need a smarter plan...but my god the OTT response to 90 out of 100 people being seen in 4hrs...we aren't talking about people waiting 3 years for an operation, we are talking about the 10 of the least serious cases having to wait a bit longer.
Any shown how Labour haven't vandalized the NHS in Wales, oh no siree...
I would have been extremely responsive if Labour had tried to sell a working smarter plan, not just well lets throw some more money at it.
Now if Cameron had get "once in a generation" into the Edinburgh Agreement, they could viably block it. He didn't. So he can't.
Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job.
For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
The way I read it Jarvis was distinguishing between the "True Believers" (the kind of people who'd get worked up over these issues...the kind of people you need going round knocking on doors) and the Unsympathetic Uncarers, who clearly couldn't give enough hoots about them to avoid somehow putting a cross by some party other than Labour.
He seemed to me to be arguing that the True Believers could get the Unsympathetic Uncarers to vote for them, so long as they could show that the True Believers could life make better for the Unsympathetic Uncarers too, without the need for getting them to swallow all the moralising and empathy. It is an acknowledgement that virtue signalling was a failure. (Given the venue of the publication, Jarvis clearly felt the need to virtue-signal to his readership, to get them onside for long enough to listen to him. He wasn't saying that it would have worked on the wider electorate.)
On the other hand, this attitude is very different from saying "our party is open to youse all". It requires the TBs at the helm, and those who lack the faith are simply a convenient and necessary source of votes to bring the TBs to power. There didn't seem to be an inkling in his piece that those people not obsessed with identity politics or certain components of social justice* in any way belonged within the fold, or had a voice that should speak for itself in the inner sanctum of power rather than their anticipated needs simply being "represented" there by eagle-eyed progressive-striped polling analysts.
* I want to give a gold star to the first Labour leadership candidate who attacks their own party's previous record in government of imposing a "bedroom tax", call it by that name though they did not, on private tenants ... if they were to query the hypocrisy at the last election of attacking the Tories for imposing it on public housing tenants without pledging to roll back their own previous mistake then they get a flashing gold star with fairy lights.
Also, you appear to have misunderstood the point of the post you are quoting, which was that while some Tories may be getting a bit overexcited at their unexpected victory, that is normal and not unreasonable given that unexpected victory, whereas the partisan mockery of Labour supporters beforehand had, it has since transpired, no basis whatsoever, so Labour supporters disliking the Tory exuberance now should bear that in mind.
Furthermore, since I was so comprehensively wrong, and on the IndyRef, people should watch my views very carefully as a useful barometer of what will definitely not happen in the future - for the record I think Scottish Independence is inevitable in 5-10 years, and may happen sooner. I hope to also be proven very wrong about that.
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
Of course this would have the unfortunate side-effect of highlighting that while the British Public has given the Lib Dems their Jotters, they remain a heavy presence in the Lords.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/18/scottish-parliament-votes-pay-rise-msps-nicola-sturgeon
Just a question. As SNP have the power, why not just legislate to reduce ministerial pay rather than go through this voluntary repayment business?
Interesting that the rise was voted through unanimously by MSPs, presumably including Tory poster girl Davidson.
If such a situation were to happen, no matter its constitutional validity, it would be difficult for the UK government to ignore.
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 just for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
They don't care about Tory aspiration policy. But equally they don't care that much about benefits and crack downs on the non-working poor. They're interested in the idea of a fair days work for a fair days pay.
The Minimum Wage was a perfect opportunity to enforce this and entrench Labour's core vote. But it was forgotten about while Labour continued to try and pander to the aspirational classes. They pooched it with Working and Child Tax Credits, effectively a subsidy for low wage employers.
The Primrose Hill set will never understand this because they are not of the non-Aspirational working class. They think that these people want hand outs. They don't, they just want a fair days pay for a fair days work, to get by in reasonable comfort based on the fruits of their own labour.
At heart Labour has forgotten about labour.