So the ship will be RSS Sir David Attenborough and the sub will be Boaty McBoatface.
Don't see why it cannot have an official name and yet everyone calls it Boaty McBoatface anyway - never stopped people called 30 St Mary Axe or whatever it is The Gherkin.
Labour have done much better than forecast in Wales. Will they get a majority out of the last 4 seats?
Like the SNP they have gained from a very divided opposition.
Still quite impressive. The Tories have taken more of a hit than Labour in Wales.
Even if the hits are indeed bad, in all honesty they don't look that bad to the layman I suspect, for England and Wales.
Very clever. By calling the sub Boaty McBoatface, it prevents that being used as a nickname for the research ship, and keeps the humourists happy. Someone has done some thinking.
Not clever at all.
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
'Huge vote in Scotland for tax cutting parties that oppose raising top rate to 50 pence. First time since 1955 that the Tories have won more votes than Labour there.' I am sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland at the 1968 Local elections when they won Glasgow - probably also 1969.
She had a pretty rough interview at 07:00 ish. Problem for her is that she can't state the obvious - Corbyn has damaged her as much as Indyref did - (i.e. association with Tories).
So the ship will be RSS Sir David Attenborough and the sub will be Boaty McBoatface.
Don't see why it cannot have an official name and yet everyone calls it Boaty McBoatface anyway - never stopped people called 30 St Mary Axe or whatever it is The Gherkin.
Labour have done much better than forecast in Wales. Will they get a majority out of the last 4 seats?
Like the SNP they have gained from a very divided opposition.
Still quite impressive. The Tories have taken more of a hit than Labour in Wales.
Even if the hits are indeed bad, in all honesty they don't look that bad to the layman I suspect, for England and Wales.
Very clever. By calling the sub Boaty McBoatface, it prevents that being used as a nickname for the research ship, and keeps the humourists happy. Someone has done some thinking.
Not clever at all.
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
Subs were also called u-boats. So Boaty McBoatface could be said to be more appropriate than the name for a ship (which is apparently what the vessel is and not a boat - I don't care if there is a difference, but some people say there is)
SLAB have finally realised that getting a new leader every time they have a bad result isn't really working. But, being SLAB, they have come to that conclusion with their weakest leader and after their worst result.
She is totally outclassed by both Nicola and Ruth and will do very little if anything to find a way to make Labour relevant to Scottish politics again. They remain in a bad place and will surely lose control of their remaining councils next year.
The most remarkable thing about the results so far is that no-one seems to be flabbergasted that the Scottish Tories easily beat Labour.
SLab are lucky that the big story is the loss of majority for Nicola, followed by the Tory surge. Ironically if Lab had lost a couple *fewer* seats the headline would have been about how bad they did!
I am so irritated at the ignorance of psephological history of virtually all commentators – including Laura Kuensberg – who constantly trot out the garbage that the Opposition should be doing better at this stage of the Parliament. In England Labour has probably done a little better than in 2011 – a year into the last Parliament – yet none of the commentators made that point and the Labour representatives failed to refer it. When Tory representatives said ‘ It is a bad night for Labour because we are making gains despite having been in Government for 6 years ‘, why on earth were Labour people not sufficiently briefed to be able to trump that with ‘ Under Macmillan the Tories were making gains at Local Elections in 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 10 or 11 years but still went on to lose the 1964 election’. If I am aware of these facts why the hell aren’nt they?
So the ship will be RSS Sir David Attenborough and the sub will be Boaty McBoatface.
Don't see why it cannot have an official name and yet everyone calls it Boaty McBoatface anyway - never stopped people called 30 St Mary Axe or whatever it is The Gherkin.
Labour have done much better than forecast in Wales. Will they get a majority out of the last 4 seats?
Like the SNP they have gained from a very divided opposition.
Still quite impressive. The Tories have taken more of a hit than Labour in Wales.
Even if the hits are indeed bad, in all honesty they don't look that bad to the layman I suspect, for England and Wales.
Very clever. By calling the sub Boaty McBoatface, it prevents that being used as a nickname for the research ship, and keeps the humourists happy. Someone has done some thinking.
Not clever at all.
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
Subs were also called u-boats. So Boaty McBoatface could be said to be more appropriate than the name for a ship (which is apparently what the vessel is and not a boat - I don't care if there is a difference, but some people say there is)
The most remarkable thing about the results so far is that no-one seems to be flabbergasted that the Scottish Tories easily beat Labour.
I don't think it's remarkable at all - the simple fact is that about 3 out of every 4 votes in Scotland went to parties of the left. The chances of the Tories progressing further are practically nil, rather it will be a case of the SNP, Labour and possibly even the LibDems each fighting for their share of that 75%.
So the ship will be RSS Sir David Attenborough and the sub will be Boaty McBoatface.
Don't see why it cannot have an official name and yet everyone calls it Boaty McBoatface anyway - never stopped people called 30 St Mary Axe or whatever it is The Gherkin.
Labour have done much better than forecast in Wales. Will they get a majority out of the last 4 seats?
Like the SNP they have gained from a very divided opposition.
Still quite impressive. The Tories have taken more of a hit than Labour in Wales.
Even if the hits are indeed bad, in all honesty they don't look that bad to the layman I suspect, for England and Wales.
Very clever. By calling the sub Boaty McBoatface, it prevents that being used as a nickname for the research ship, and keeps the humourists happy. Someone has done some thinking.
Not clever at all.
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
Subs were also called u-boats. So Boaty McBoatface could be said to be more appropriate than the name for a ship (which is apparently what the vessel is and not a boat - I don't care if there is a difference, but some people say there is)
Navy vessels are all called Ships (as in HMS), except for submarines which are called Boats. I learned this the hard way one sunny afternoon in a bar with a senior Naval officer!
So the ship will be RSS Sir David Attenborough and the sub will be Boaty McBoatface.
Don't see why it cannot have an official name and yet everyone calls it Boaty McBoatface anyway - never stopped people called 30 St Mary Axe or whatever it is The Gherkin.
Labour have done much better than forecast in Wales. Will they get a majority out of the last 4 seats?
Like the SNP they have gained from a very divided opposition.
Still quite impressive. The Tories have taken more of a hit than Labour in Wales.
Even if the hits are indeed bad, in all honesty they don't look that bad to the layman I suspect, for England and Wales.
Very clever. By calling the sub Boaty McBoatface, it prevents that being used as a nickname for the research ship, and keeps the humourists happy. Someone has done some thinking.
Not clever at all.
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
Subs were also called u-boats. So Boaty McBoatface could be said to be more appropriate than the name for a ship (which is apparently what the vessel is and not a boat - I don't care if there is a difference, but some people say there is)
Ships have captains.
So a dingy could be a ship if a captain is put in charge of it?
She had a pretty rough interview at 07:00 ish. Problem for her is that she can't state the obvious - Corbyn has damaged her as much as Indyref did - (i.e. association with Tories).
She was attempting to distance herself from SLABs results along the *when voters give their verdict on us*... as if it hadn't happened less than 24hrs earlier.
And Exeter was a council where Labour were expected to struggle.
The poor Labour moderates, these are not results to launch a coup from.
Anecdotally it feels like Labour were winning small but significant numbers of seats all across the south. I don't doubt the analysis that they probably should be doing better, but as you say, not the results to launch coups from, they don't look that bad, particularly with Wales OK and London for Khan (I am sure).
@nmackinnon: "So Diane Abbott if you could describe Labour's results last night in one word what would it be?". "Steady progress". Erm that's two words.
Sounds like everybody except Blairite wing of the Labour party will be happy with these election results. Corbyn safe, Tories happy, Corbyn safe, Maomentum happy.
The SNP has lost its majority. But they may be able to form a minority government with Green support, or perhaps a coalition with the Greens, who are the only other pro-independence party with seats.
The Conservatives and Labour together got 42.0% of the vote, and the SNP got 41.7%. In the last Scottish general election, Con/Lab got a total of 38.7% and the SNP got 44.0%. So there has been a swing of 2.8% from the SNP to Con/Lab. In the last election, the SNP beat Con/Lab, but in yesterday's election Con/Lab beat them. The swing of 2.8% against the SNP remains the same if we include the LibDems, who received 5.2% of the vote, the same as last time.
The current electoral system has therefore favoured the SNP, who won 63 seats with 2% less of the vote than the Conservatives and Labour, who together only won 55 seats.
Even under the current system, if nobody had voted for the Greens, a single-issue party, there could be a grand unionist coalition of Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Most people I know would prefer such a coalition to another SNP government.
There also seems to have been a swing of about 0.1% against independence (looking only at the percentages of the vote won by parties who won seats.)
So there are no serious grounds for wasting public money on another independence referendum.
I wonder whether any of the unionist parties is going to make that obvious point.
@Polruan - of course, you are right. You have to make a judgement on whether the country will vote for a party led by a member of the hard left who has spent 30 years cosying up to anti-Semites and other low-life because, like him, they also hate America, or not. My judgment is that the country will decisively reject such a party and there is nothing in the results we have seen so far to make me reconsider. Alternatively, you could come to the conclusion that the country will put all that to one side, or not think it is important, and vote for a left-wing economic agenda. Again, I guess that outside of the results in Scotland, Wales and Middle England you could look at things and conclude that is still a possibility. My guess, though, is that actually a third scenario is the likeliest: most Labour members do not actually believe that a Labour government is the priority; instead, their focus is on defeating "Blairites". But it is only a judgement. I have no empirical evidence to back that up.
Don't get me wrong, a terrorist-style insurgency by the right wing PLP might be totally justified on the basis you outline above. But they do need to have a clear idea of how they will make it better and that's been woefully lacking so far.
I'm not sure you are right about the views of members, though of course I can only speak of the views of Corbyn supporters that I know. The prevailing view as I see it is that a Labour government is a priority and therefore defeating the Blairite strategy of tracking the Tories' position has to be defeated. In the same way as you see certain qualities of this leadership's strategy as electoral poison, many of us see a failure to offer a clear economic and social alternative as electoral poison. It's possible that 40-odd ex MPs in the Lib Dem party could sympathise with that view.
Interesting spin lines from CCHQ, I've seen quite a few Tory MPs, including cabinet ministers going for this line
@DavidGauke: Labour's collapse in Scotland means that, whoever leads them, they can only govern the UK in future with the help of the SNP.
There were some glimpses of light for Labour even in the Scottish results. Firstly they did manage to win three constituencies directly - rather than the widely expected wipeout - compared with just a single seat in 2015.Secondly the vote shares look like SNP 46.5 % with Labour on 22.5%.Given that Labour tends to perform rather better at Westminster elections compared with Holyrood , it seems reasonable to believe that had yesterday been a UK election Labour would have managed 25% with SNP on 44/45%. That would imply a 3% swing from SNP to Labour compared with 2015.
I have not followed the results at all other than knowing that the Tories came second in Scotland, which is amazing.
I thought that one reason why the Labour membership was so keen on Corbyn was that his left-wing views would resonate in Scotland and he would get back the votes Milliband lost. Clearly not. How then does Labour win in the UK without Scotland?
The SNP has lost its majority. But they may be able to form a minority government with Green support, or perhaps a coalition with the Greens, who are the only other pro-independence party with seats.
The Conservatives and Labour together got 42.0% of the vote, and the SNP got 41.7%. In the last Scottish general election, Con/Lab got a total of 38.7% and the SNP got 44.0%. So there has been a swing of 2.8% from the SNP to Con/Lab. In the last election, the SNP beat Con/Lab, but in yesterday's election Con/Lab beat them. The swing of 2.8% against the SNP remains the same if we include the LibDems, who received 5.2% of the vote, the same as last time.
The current electoral system has therefore favoured the SNP, who won 63 seats with 2% less of the vote than the Conservatives and Labour, who together only won 55 seats.
Even under the current system, if nobody had voted for the Greens, a single-issue party, there could be a grand unionist coalition of Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Most people I know would prefer such a coalition to another SNP government.
There also seems to have been a swing of about 0.1% against independence (looking only at the percentages of the vote won by parties who won seats.)
So there are no serious grounds for wasting public money on another independence referendum.
I wonder whether any of the unionist parties is going to make that obvious point.
That's an amazing pick and mix of figures you've done to get there.
One of the most significant political events of the last 24 hours was Nigel Lawson's claim on Question Time that a vote for 'Remain' would mean 77 million Turks flooding into this country. If they are REALLY gong to run with this-the posters almost design themselves-then we are going to face a very unpleasant two months. I fear that someone like Lawson wouldn't have made that claim in those terms if he hadn't been given the go ahead
Interesting spin lines from CCHQ, I've seen quite a few Tory MPs, including cabinet ministers going for this line
@DavidGauke: Labour's collapse in Scotland means that, whoever leads them, they can only govern the UK in future with the help of the SNP.
There were some glimpses of light for Labour even in the Scottish results. Firstly they did manage to win three constituencies directly - rather than the widely expected wipeout - compared with just a single seat in 2015.Secondly the vote shares look like SNP 46.5 % with Labour on 22.5%.Given that Labour tends to perform rather better at Westminster elections compared with Holyrood , it seems reasonable to believe that had yesterday been a UK election Labour would have managed 25% with SNP on 44/45%. That would imply a 3% swing from SNP to Labour compared with 2015.
Where did you get those vote shares from for yesterday's Scottish general election? Wikipedia are giving the figures I quoted a few comments down, including 41.7% for the SNP's share. I don't know where they found them. (They quote them after "seats won", but they obviously aren't seat percentages.)
One of the most significant political events of the last 24 hours was Nigel Lawson's claim on Question Time that a vote for 'Remain' would mean 77 million Turks flooding into this country. If they are REALLY gong to run with this-the posters almost design themselves-then we are going to face a very unpleasant two months. I fear that someone like Lawson wouldn't have made that claim in those terms if he hadn't been given the go ahead
Agreed, but actually he has a point. Turkey could be accepted as a member. And if they are, then there could be millions of Turkish immigrants to Britain.
Interesting spin lines from CCHQ, I've seen quite a few Tory MPs, including cabinet ministers going for this line
@DavidGauke: Labour's collapse in Scotland means that, whoever leads them, they can only govern the UK in future with the help of the SNP.
There were some glimpses of light for Labour even in the Scottish results. Firstly they did manage to win three constituencies directly - rather than the widely expected wipeout - compared with just a single seat in 2015.Secondly the vote shares look like SNP 46.5 % with Labour on 22.5%.Given that Labour tends to perform rather better at Westminster elections compared with Holyrood , it seems reasonable to believe that had yesterday been a UK election Labour would have managed 25% with SNP on 44/45%. That would imply a 3% swing from SNP to Labour compared with 2015.
Where did you get those vote shares from for yesterday's Scottish general election? Wikipedia are giving the figures I quoted a few comments down, including 41.7% for the SNP's share. I don't know where they found them. (They quote them after "seats won", but they obviously aren't seat percentages.)
That's the list vote, they got 46.5 on the constituency vote. Their vote went up on the constituency vote.
'One of the most significant political events of the last 24 hours was Nigel Lawson's claim on Question Time that a vote for 'Remain' would mean 77 million Turks flooding into this country. If they are REALLY gong to run with this-the posters almost design themselves-then we are going to face a very unpleasant two months. I fear that someone like Lawson wouldn't have made that claim in those terms if he hadn't been given the go ahead'
And in 2004 we were told that only 13,000 immigrants were expected from Eastern Europe,that went well.
The SNP has lost its majority. But they may be able to form a minority government with Green support, or perhaps a coalition with the Greens, who are the only other pro-independence party with seats.
The Conservatives and Labour together got 42.0% of the vote, and the SNP got 41.7%. In the last Scottish general election, Con/Lab got a total of 38.7% and the SNP got 44.0%. So there has been a swing of 2.8% from the SNP to Con/Lab. In the last election, the SNP beat Con/Lab, but in yesterday's election Con/Lab beat them. The swing of 2.8% against the SNP remains the same if we include the LibDems, who received 5.2% of the vote, the same as last time.
The current electoral system has therefore favoured the SNP, who won 63 seats with 2% less of the vote than the Conservatives and Labour, who together only won 55 seats.
Even under the current system, if nobody had voted for the Greens, a single-issue party, there could be a grand unionist coalition of Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Most people I know would prefer such a coalition to another SNP government.
There also seems to have been a swing of about 0.1% against independence (looking only at the percentages of the vote won by parties who won seats.)
So there are no serious grounds for wasting public money on another independence referendum.
I wonder whether any of the unionist parties is going to make that obvious point.
We are sick of hearing those donkeys endlessly whining about it.
Comments
Why would anyone call a sub "Boaty McBoatface" ?
It's completely ridiculous.
This is what happens when you let politicians name things.
'Huge vote in Scotland for tax cutting parties that oppose raising top rate to 50 pence. First time since 1955 that the Tories have won more votes than Labour there.'
I am sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland at the 1968 Local elections when they won Glasgow - probably also 1969.
Official.
Con 28 minus 3
Lab 15 plus 1
LDem 5 plus 3
Ind 0 minus 1
I confess I am surprised.
She is totally outclassed by both Nicola and Ruth and will do very little if anything to find a way to make Labour relevant to Scottish politics again. They remain in a bad place and will surely lose control of their remaining councils next year.
Lab 30 plus 2
Con 8 down 3
LDem 1 N/C
I learned this the hard way one sunny afternoon in a bar with a senior Naval officer!
The poor Labour moderates, these are not results to launch a coup from.
Con 22 minus 6
LDem 15 minus 5
Lab 11 plus 2
Ind 3 N/C
Murnaghan looked at her with daggers and let rip.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3575716/Trump-I-integrity-cheat-golf.html
And tommorow the world...
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
The SNP has lost its majority. But they may be able to form a minority government with Green support, or perhaps a coalition with the Greens, who are the only other pro-independence party with seats.
The Conservatives and Labour together got 42.0% of the vote, and the SNP got 41.7%. In the last Scottish general election, Con/Lab got a total of 38.7% and the SNP got 44.0%. So there has been a swing of 2.8% from the SNP to Con/Lab. In the last election, the SNP beat Con/Lab, but in yesterday's election Con/Lab beat them. The swing of 2.8% against the SNP remains the same if we include the LibDems, who received 5.2% of the vote, the same as last time.
The current electoral system has therefore favoured the SNP, who won 63 seats with 2% less of the vote than the Conservatives and Labour, who together only won 55 seats.
Even under the current system, if nobody had voted for the Greens, a single-issue party, there could be a grand unionist coalition of Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Most people I know would prefer such a coalition to another SNP government.
There also seems to have been a swing of about 0.1% against independence (looking only at the percentages of the vote won by parties who won seats.)
So there are no serious grounds for wasting public money on another independence referendum.
I wonder whether any of the unionist parties is going to make that obvious point.
Don't get me wrong, a terrorist-style insurgency by the right wing PLP might be totally justified on the basis you outline above. But they do need to have a clear idea of how they will make it better and that's been woefully lacking so far.
I'm not sure you are right about the views of members, though of course I can only speak of the views of Corbyn supporters that I know. The prevailing view as I see it is that a Labour government is a priority and therefore defeating the Blairite strategy of tracking the Tories' position has to be defeated. In the same way as you see certain qualities of this leadership's strategy as electoral poison, many of us see a failure to offer a clear economic and social alternative as electoral poison. It's possible that 40-odd ex MPs in the Lib Dem party could sympathise with that view.
I have not followed the results at all other than knowing that the Tories came second in Scotland, which is amazing.
I thought that one reason why the Labour membership was so keen on Corbyn was that his left-wing views would resonate in Scotland and he would get back the votes Milliband lost. Clearly not. How then does Labour win in the UK without Scotland?
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/election-results/live-count-progress-2016?contest=23
'One of the most significant political events of the last 24 hours was Nigel Lawson's claim on Question Time that a vote for 'Remain' would mean 77 million Turks flooding into this country. If they are REALLY gong to run with this-the posters almost design themselves-then we are going to face a very unpleasant two months. I fear that someone like Lawson wouldn't have made that claim in those terms if he hadn't been given the go ahead'
And in 2004 we were told that only 13,000 immigrants were expected from Eastern Europe,that went well.