Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says that the Battle of Skinner’s Seat is onl
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says that the Battle of Skinner’s Seat is only the beginning
The House of Commons can be a pretty rowdy place at times but it does at least have rules and conventions to which its members are expected to adhere. At one time, it had far fewer rules and rather more conventions (as the Lords still does).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Re SNP, yes, pretty standard tactics in terms of disrupting. My own view is most conventions are harmless so going against them just to be different is just part of game playing - and it's not only the SNP who play that game - rather than anything serious, and I think how Labour play things will be very interesting. I expect they'll test the waters with different approaches over the next few years to see how it plays around the country and Scotland in particular, seeing if trying to outdo or ignore the SNP tactics works any.
Edit: in Scotland of course, sorry! - but that is wehre the SNP are competing with Labour.
His protest against the poll tax which delayed the 1988 Budget generated huge publicity and was followed in Scotland by the SNP victory in the Govan by election. The tactics later were more sophisticated. Sillars moved a by election writ in 1989 to delay the Budget -totally within the rules and forcing Kinnock to co-operate with the Tories to save the Budget. Salmond exploited the lack of Committee chair powers to advertise the Tory majority of English MP on Scottish Comiittees - an early example of SVSL. Everything was well done and well advertised and catalpulted the SNP at four MPs to be the major opposition instead of Labour with 50!
Salmond called Labour the "feeble fifty". I think the SNP will prove to be the "fiesty 56"
Maybe it is just new kids at school & idle hands and all that.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/223646.html
- on a date of his choosing
- with his question of choice
- with his preferred electorate
he managed to completely blow it !
Much respect
edit: checking US stat, seems high.
Parliamentary opposition is about to get a whole lot noisier, but I doubt effectiveness will be the beneficiary of it. – The media coverage so far, has portrayed such behaviour as petulant and childish, it will take quite a while to rewrite that narrative.
Anyway as I indicated I think Labour were too complacent about the concept of full employment. I am confident the government can and should target 4% unemployment and 20% inactivity.
The US rate is really high, in response to your edit. Don't know the exact figure though.
Seriously, how can anyone think this idea that the SNP will somehow wither because their strong position - which they are playing extremely well so far - will backfire on them. it's ridiculous paternalistic nonsense, somehow SNP MPs are believed to be inferior and incompetent. We are seeing just the opposite.
The Second Referendum will be within 10 years, most likely during the next Holyrood term. The SNP know what happens if you wait too long because the Quebec example is staring them in the face. Scotland will back a Referendum in the next Holyrood Manifesto, the SNP have no desire to have power over the rest of the UK.
Until the last few years, Independence has NEVER been a possibility for Scotland. It has never commanded enough public support, being supported by at best 25% of the electorate on a consistent basis.
Thanks to Salmond that is now 45% at least, probably closer to 50% and for people like me who until recently never believed we could possibly see Independence now know it is not only possible but highly likely.
Salmond has worked miracles.
The latest OECD comparison puts the US inactivity rate about four points above ours.
I take your point about SP age, but I would suggest the higher above 64 it is, the lower the proportion of people who will stop work at 64 or earlier. :-)
I suspect that one thing here is that SNP have been sending their 1st division politicians to Holyrood ever since the Scottish devolved government was set up, whereas (without wishing to insult anyone) my impression is that UK parties have by & large been sending 1st division to Westminster.
So what we probably have in Westminster now is (mostly) SNP 2nd division, or a youth team. And they all arrived in a gang, rather than as ones & twos knowing few others.
(May I add how nice it is to have caught the start of a thread - I usually join after about 250 comments.)
On the whole, I think they would be wise to leave the rowdiness to the SNP. Part of the reason why they lost is that they were seen as weak and irresponsible. Lots of shouting, jeering and jostling on the six o'clock news isn't exactly going to dispel that impression.
(I left out Burnham because if they elect him they are clearly resolved merely to be irresolute.)
If anyone has any information I'd be interested to hear it.
Fundamentalists want a border even if it means a poorer Scotland, genuine social democrats do not.
As far as Holyrood goes, the SNP are a very popular and well respected government. Despite anything the Loyalists throw at them, they remain popular and respected and have incredibly high approval ratings, both as a government and individually.
SLAB meanwhile have no leader, no leadership, no prospect of leadership and another kicking due in less than 12 months time. They can get much worse, they are almost certain to get much worse and will see half their representation in Holyrood vanish in May 2016.
There aren't enough marginal seats on current numbers for tactical voting to have an impact. There isn't enough consideration of tactical voting for it have an impact. For the Loyalist parties things do not look at all good.
[edit] - cheers @Theuniondivvie
The idea that some of their own are upsetting what is perceived as part of the posh upperclass English sect is something that most will enjoy.
People are right to point out the lesser workload that Scottish MPs have, it results in them having more time to spend in the chamber itself. This again creates a favourable impression with the voters back home when proceedings from the Commons are shown on the TV.
The thing that is likely to bring down the SNP it terms of popularity is some area of policy that splits the party. Remember there are all sorts of people in the same party who are joined together by the single goal of independence. The good news for the SNP is that since the overall goal appears to be very close that I suspect most in their party will go along with anything so long as the overall objective is achieved.
If however there is a delay in getting the 2nd referendum then the greater the chance that "an event" could create friction in the party. I would guess that in 15 years time there will be either an independent Scotland or a 2nd (probably more centre-right) independence party.
https://twitter.com/RobbieDinwoodie/status/600266504744148992/photo/1
Eventually, parties become stale and tired. They start to become corrupt as the big money gravitates towards them. They start to attract less and less talent as patronage takes over from meritocracy. They become blamed for more and more as memories of their predecessors recede into the distance. At that point, in a democratic system, people rally around a different party and the incumbents are kicked out.
It may take a while in the case of the SNP, because they are so new, and so fresh, and so exciting. But it will happen, and another party - I don't know which one, could be any of about four - will emerge to take the mantle.
Indeed, if Scotland goes independent it may happen more quickly as the parties fracture and reform along new lines as the unionist/independence debate fades into irrelevance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32579722
The idea that the SNP will fall at the first hurdle and be kicked out in favour of Labour any time soon is risible. For the first two exanmples above, it took Labour 14 years to oust the Tories after 1983, it took the Tories 18 years to regain power after Blair in 1997.
In the meantime the SNP only have to remain popular long enough to get the Second Referendum through in 2017 and hope the Tories refuse to deliver FFA until then. Currently they are right on schedule for that and the Tories are playing right into their hands.
As for Oxbridge, my doctorate is from Aberystwyth, and having met several Oxbridge graduates I would back the quality of any other university in the UK ahead of those two. Far too many idiots who seem to have been given degrees on the nod because of their fathers' connections (Miliband, Balls, Hunt, Kaletsky, Waldegrave, Osborne...) while I had a gruelling two-hour viva where I was ruthlessly probed on every typing error.
Making such remarks just makes you look petty.
Finally, I would point out I am Welsh, and Welsh-speaking Welsh at that, not English. Is insulting those people you keep talking about wanting to make common cause with a really good idea? Just a thought.
Interesting to read about the backgrounds of the new SNP cohort from the other posters' replies. (NB. I certainly didn't intend to portray any of them as incompetent or stupid - why would they be? - simply making the point that Westminster is not the SNP's top priority. - edited to add, happy to be corrected on this.)
We might be able to use the 1997 New Labour cohort ('Blair babes' was it?) as some sort of guide as to how people respond to unexpected election.
However they won't push it and won't demand it because if it is delivered they will have no option but to delay the Second Referendum. Of course the positive is that after 10 years of FFA and a much higher GDP per capita by then, the Second Referendum will be a stooshie.
What was that about gratuitous insults?
Whilst unfamiliar with that historical period, it seems a good comparison to me.
https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/bayoneting-the-wounded-c7a0d4599424
In terms of SLAB, it was the undermining of Johan Lamont by London Labour, MSM and Jim Murphy which put SLAB firmly on the road to extinction. As leader Murphy has failed in all measurable areas. The pressure from within SLAB is what forced Jim to resign, not Cybernats. Indeed the SLAB SEC have now excluded Jim from the committees focused on the rebuilding SLAB, as they were concerned Jim would use this process to try and settle scores within SLAB.
Chris also highlights that Carmichael has been under pressure to resign for many weeks, it was only seven days ago when this became public knowledge on 23rd May, so if Carmichael has been under pressure to resign for many weeks I can only assume that it is internal LibDem pressure. I think Carmichael only has himself to blame as he had so many opportunities to come clean on his involvement in leaking the memo before 7th May. To make matters worse it now transpires that he told Tavish Scott, Shetlands MSP, about his actions on 10th May.
We have since had barmy interventions by Malcom Bruce, Michael White and Willie Rennie. The O&S electorate who are now stuck with a lame duck MP who the MSM should be worrying about not Carmichael. Bizarrely the Scottish LibDems recently put out the following:
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/rennie_lib_dems_are_listening
Chris keeps banging on about Cybernats but fails to point out that there is a vibrant Cyberunionist community battling daily with the Cybernats on social media. Chris and his right wing MSM buddies are also Cyberunionists as they retweet each other’s articles all day long.
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/604655050552545280/photo/1
One does rather wonder about the implications for tactical voting, and whether those urging voting for Tories or LDs will be disciplined. And at the futility of going to the trouble of writing a legalistic letter accusing someone of supporting a non-existent organization.
Labour really have 'meh' choices for Labour leader.
Reminds me of the four year run up to SindyRef....how none of us "got it".
Keep up the good work.
http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/general-election-results-2015
Funny how independence could be achieved in 18 months, but FFA will take 'several years'.....
http://data.london.gov.uk/2015-general-election-maps/
Boringly, however, the answer is not much change.
The excellent PB Analyst "AndyJS "also posted a link to a spreadsheet that he had created based on every constituency. I gratefully took a copy and have been adding to it on my private files, to get majorities, 2nd parties, swings needed etc.
If I can create anything worthwhile then I will get advice on how I can share it.
Scottish Defence League
English Defence League
British National Party
National Front
Britain First
Ulster Volunteer Force
Loyalist Volunteer Force
It's Hugh MacDiarmid btw. He wasn't a Nazi sympathiser, and his erstwhile admiration of Mussolini's Fascists was probably somewhat less fulsome than e.g. Churchill's.
I think that the alleged rowdiness of the SNP MPs has been greatly exaggerated. They are paragons of good behaviour compared to some of the events that routinely go on in the chamber when it turns into what sounds like a bear pit during a spirited PMQ.
Why is applauding considered unacceptable, for example, but loud baying and waving of order papers is apparently OK?
It's not for nothing that the most familiar image of the Speaker is of someone yelling "Order! Order!"
It's about time ALL MPs grew up a bit.
Anyone would think I punched a witch in the face on New Year's Day...
There is some support for Wolmar as he's a local member and interesting on transport, and some for Abbott as the one who writes most about issues in her 250 words (we agreed we didn't much care about all the personal background stuff). But we were pretty clear that it would come down to Khan or Jowell in the actual vote. I think Khan will probably get it. Haven't decided yet myself.
I'm doing an interview on Sky tomorrow at 1130, incidentally, with Bob Blizzard, on "Why did we lose and what does Labour need to change?"
On the White Working Class, I think that she has been over interpreted. It is a common usage on here for example and does not mean the writer is racist. There is a need to help this rather alienated part of society enjoy the same fruits as the rest of society. Supporting this group does not mean penalising another. This is not a zero sum game. Helping alienated Muslims join the mainstream in Britain is an equally worthwhile aim.
From her speech yesterday in Leicester it is clear that she wants opportunity and aspiration for everybody:
"So many of the opportunities I’ve enjoyed and the chances I’ve been able to take, I owe to our party and to the brilliant and visionary people who have gone before me. They understood that fulfilling your potential should never be dependent on where you’re born, what your parents did, your gender, sexuality or the colour of skin. We must end the scourge of illiteracy and innumeracy, broaden the horizons of our young people and give everyone a better chance in life. Under my leadership, Labour will do just that."
On Free Schools, I didn't know that was what she specifically said. From what I'd heard her support for Free Schools was Govesque - as in an ideological commitment to them, and belief they are the 'saviour', of the education system. If she'll keep open the good ones (if they arise), and close down the poor ones, then I think that's reasonable.
I'm also happy to see what she said in the extract you posted - it was her saying things like that, that was the main reason why I supported her. Can I ask, why specifically White working class people are 'alienated'? I've always seen it, that many of the working classes in general feel quite alienated from society.
This happened to be an error as we now know, Broxtowe was not to be an AWS. But what is shocking was how quickly he accepted that he was being actively discriminated . Him, NP, was being told that because of his sexual characteristics, that he would not be allowed to stand in a seat he lost by the slimmest of margins only a few years before, and the seat that the good people of his constituency had repeatedly voted to represent them in Parliament.
If a man is so spineless that he refuses to stand up for himself when he is being so clearly wronged, how can we have confidence to stand up for others who are being discriminated against?
Unfortunately for George, he doesn't seem to know that the Boundary Commission has always based its reviews on electorates rather than population.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/how-tories-are-trying-make-it-impossible-labour-win-again
(Who's Dawn?)
But, never interrupt your opponents when they're making a mistake.