If the Tories are to form the opposition to the SNP for the foreseeable future it is worth thinking about where they can go from here. I would suggest their targets would be Aberdeenshire East, Banffshire and Buchan Coast, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, Angus North and Mearns, Angus South, Perthshire North, Perthshire South and Kinross-Shire, Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh Southern.
Some of these are a serious stretch, some are bordering on fantasy but it is only 10. It is not enough to become the largest party. I don't think the Tories have topped out but I really cannot see them breaking into Glasgow or the surrounding conurbations where most Scots live. To get to largest party they need to change their shape. I still think the Unionist Party is the way forward.
Yes. What you are really talking about David is the Tories getting back to where they were thirty years or so ago. I think it is realistic, albeit hard - and it is about securing a solid second place, not winning.
I'd add Moray to your list.
You're right. I forgot Moray. But basically yes. Rural Scotland is up for grabs as the SNP look more Glasgow orientated and edge further centre left to complete the demolition of Labour but they are always outnumbered by the city dwellers.
Labour are going to win Bristol mayoral election extremely easily. Incumbent miles behind in the first round, 57k to 33k votes (roughly 40% vs 20%). Going to get pasted.
Interestingly in raw vote numbers, Ferguson has got the same number of votes as 2012. Turn out was way up and they all seem to have gone to Corbynistia Rees.
Is that the Corbyn affect, pissed off at incumbent effect, or more awareness that it is something that can be voted on?
It's another example of Corbynistas actually voting, as a lot of people thought they wouldn't. doesn't mean there's enough of them, but it's worth keeping in mind: the old rule of downweighting Labour poll scores may no longer be reliable.
Sympathies to JohnO - losing is never fun. Is the winning Resident politically flavoured, or just a local wanting to serve?
So anyway. I went into my local Ladbrokes and handed the nice man my paper slip. I work away from home so the bet was placed in a different branch, but after some attempts he managed to scan the barcode. He gave me my £107 plus change and I walked out. He didn't even argue, just gave me the money like it was just no thang. I went to buy a burger from the local stall, the one where I stand when I want to know what "Vote Leave" are thinking (they have a man near the stall, presumably because he likes burgers as well). The burger tasted nice, and it was a warm sunny day...
If the Tories are to form the opposition to the SNP for the foreseeable future it is worth thinking about where they can go from here. I would suggest their targets would be Aberdeenshire East, Banffshire and Buchan Coast, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, Angus North and Mearns, Angus South, Perthshire North, Perthshire South and Kinross-Shire, Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh Southern.
Some of these are a serious stretch, some are bordering on fantasy but it is only 10. It is not enough to become the largest party. I don't think the Tories have topped out but I really cannot see them breaking into Glasgow or the surrounding conurbations where most Scots live. To get to largest party they need to change their shape. I still think the Unionist Party is the way forward.
Yes. What you are really talking about David is the Tories getting back to where they were thirty years or so ago. I think it is realistic, albeit hard - and it is about securing a solid second place, not winning.
I'd add Moray to your list.
You're right. I forgot Moray. But basically yes. Rural Scotland is up for grabs as the SNP look more Glasgow orientated and edge further centre left to complete the demolition of Labour but they are always outnumbered by the city dwellers.
How do the Tories win over the LDs in rural areas?
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
Are you for real? I read the Morning Star somtimes, and look at CNN sometimes. The resemblance is less than obvious.
True, there's occasionally some interesting and fresh reporting in the Morning Star.
Many years ago I was at a Conservative annual conference. An organisation I campaign for had a stall and a big fringe meeting. I was astonished to see how many copies of the Morning Star were on sale at the paper stands and were being bought by delegates. Presumably for the lolz.
So anyway. I went into my local Ladbrokes and handed the nice man my paper slip. I work away from home so the bet was placed in a different branch, but after some attempts he managed to scan the barcode. He gave me my £107 plus change and I walked out. He didn't even argue, just gave me the money like it was just no thang. I went to buy a burger from the local stall, the one where I stand when I want to know what "Vote Leave" are thinking (they have a man near the stall, presumably because he likes burgers as well). The burger tasted nice, and it was a warm sunny day...
So anyway. I went into my local Ladbrokes and handed the nice man my paper slip. I work away from home so the bet was placed in a different branch, but after some attempts he managed to scan the barcode. He gave me my £107 plus change and I walked out. He didn't even argue, just gave me the money like it was just no thang. I went to buy a burger from the local stall, the one where I stand when I want to know what "Vote Leave" are thinking (they have a man near the stall, presumably because he likes burgers as well). The burger tasted nice, and it was a warm sunny day...
Congrats on your win.
Thank you.
As mentioned passim, it wasn't really about the money (seven pounds profit is not really something to boast about - which of course won't stop me!) it was simply about acclimatising myself to the whole betting experience: do research, make prediction, walk in shop, give money to man, specify bet, get slip, walk out, see prediction realised, walk into other shop, give slip to other man, get money, walk out, buy burger. The whole development cycle, if you will.
Now that that has happened and I have developed a rudimentary "muscle memory", I can roll this out with other bets, the size of which will vary according to confidence and the odds. It'll never be anything to write home about (I am plainly risk averse) but I now have a string to my bow that I did not have previously.
So anyway. I went into my local Ladbrokes and handed the nice man my paper slip. I work away from home so the bet was placed in a different branch, but after some attempts he managed to scan the barcode. He gave me my £107 plus change and I walked out. He didn't even argue, just gave me the money like it was just no thang. I went to buy a burger from the local stall, the one where I stand when I want to know what "Vote Leave" are thinking (they have a man near the stall, presumably because he likes burgers as well). The burger tasted nice, and it was a warm sunny day...
Congrats on your win.
Thank you.
As mentioned passim, it wasn't really about the money (seven pounds profit is not really something to boast about - which of course won't stop me!) it was simply about acclimatising myself to the whole betting experience: do research, make prediction, walk in shop, give money to man, specify bet, get slip, walk out, see prediction realised, walk into other shop, give slip to other man, get money, walk out, buy burger. The whole development cycle, if you will.
Now that that has happened and I have developed a rudimentary "muscle memory", I can roll this out with other bets, the size of which will vary according to confidence and the odds. It'll never be anything to write home about (I am plainly risk averse) but I now have a string to my bow that I did not have previously.
The problem for scottish Labour is that there is already a major centre-left party in scotland, the SNP.
The FPTP system always results in 2 major parties, one on the centre-right and one on the centre-left, once you fall off the top two you need an extraordinary set of circumstances to return, as the Liberals found out 100 years ago.
In the case of scottish Labour, it's leadership continues to be pathetic and too centrist to attract any disillusioned lefties from the SNP if there are any that is.
What they need is a return to local Glasgow roots to get rid of the stigma of them being part of the Edinburgh elite. Glasgow has more leftwing votes than Edinburgh and Dungdale always had zero appeal in those areas, that's why my suggestion was for SLAB to elect a local MSP from Glasgow instead.
As for the the scottish Tories that is simple, the SNP moving to the left to occupy the Labour ground means that they exposed themselves on their right flank for the Tories to occupy. That the Tories succeeded means that the coalition of voters that the SNP built is fragile.
I'm not amazed that the SNP lost its majority, I was the one of the very few who predicted that here a year ago.
Yet as the SNP move to the centre they leave a gap for Labour on their left and if they fail to deliver independence in this parliament many of the nats' core supporters may well become disillusioned and return to their natural Labour home
Labour's performance as part of Better Together has poisoned the well for Indy supporters voting Labour in the near future.
Labour leadership made it clear they didn't want Independence supporters being part of the party.
It poisoned it for Murphy and London Labour and the legacy of that remained on Thursday but I am not sure that holds for Dugdale, especially if the SNP fail to deliver the independence referendum independence supporters want and deliver a centre/centre right agenda in government
Dugdale is useless, she will be a serial loser. SNP have to stay at the centre , Scotland does not want either a nutjob left wing government or a rabid right wing Tory junta. They need to manage at the edges of right and left and avoid swinging too far either way.
They already have a "nutjob left wing government", that's why the SNP lost it's right flank to the Tories.
Loonies are out today for sure, hopefully you are under fourteen or else you are not right in the head
Just read really interesting piece by Iain Martin (Capx) called "In defence of Zac." (Sorry I don't know how to link articles!) Basically saying that those people putting the boot in now, (including his sister) could be eating their words further down the line, when some of his warnings re Khan's "associates" may appear to have some merit! I don't know London, or anything about the London scene but my feeling is there may be something in what he says. For his campaign to go the way it did, when he appeared to act completely out of character, suggests something made him change.
Anyway, we shall see in due course no doubt. But if anything does come to light, will the "media" report it, or keep quiet, because of not being seen to be ------?
Yet another religiously motivated killing in Bangladesh...
Sufi Muslim leader found hacked to death in a Bangladesh mango grove in suspected Islamist killing - two weeks after ISIS murdered a professor in the same district
The problem for scottish Labour is that there is already a major centre-left party in scotland, the SNP.
The FPTP system always results in 2 major parties, one on the centre-right and one on the centre-left, once you fall off the top two you need an extraordinary set of circumstances to return, as the Liberals found out 100 years ago.
In the case of scottish Labour, it's leadership continues to be pathetic and too centrist to attract any disillusioned lefties from the SNP if there are any that is.
What they need is a return to local Glasgow roots to get rid of the stigma of them being part of the Edinburgh elite. Glasgow has more leftwing votes than Edinburgh and Dungdale always had zero appeal in those areas, that's why my suggestion was for SLAB to elect a local MSP from Glasgow instead.
As for the the scottish Tories that is simple, the SNP moving to the left to occupy the Labour ground means that they exposed themselves on their right flank for the Tories to occupy. That the Tories succeeded means that the coalition of voters that the SNP built is fragile.
I'm not amazed that the SNP lost its majority, I was the one of the very few who predicted that here a year ago.
Yet as the SNP move to the centre they leave a gap for Labour on their left and if they fail to deliver independence in this parliament many of the nats' core supporters may well become disillusioned and return to their natural Labour home
Labour's performance as part of Better Together has poisoned the well for Indy supporters voting Labour in the near future.
Labour leadership made it clear they didn't want Independence supporters being part of the party.
It poisoned it for Murphy and London Labour and the legacy of that remained on Thursday but I am not sure that holds for Dugdale, especially if the SNP fail to deliver the independence referendum independence supporters want and deliver a centre/centre right agenda in government
Dugdale is useless, she will be a serial loser. SNP have to stay at the centre , Scotland does not want either a nutjob left wing government or a rabid right wing Tory junta. They need to manage at the edges of right and left and avoid swinging too far either way.
They already have a "nutjob left wing government", that's why the SNP lost it's right flank to the Tories.
Is there any evidence that happened as opposed to motivated Tories turning out and hard core Unionists switching from Labour?
A woman on the microphone speaking now....telling people to stay seated. If you stay in your seat, you must stay for 15 minutes. Otherwise leave now...
If the Tories are to form the opposition to the SNP for the foreseeable future it is worth thinking about where they can go from here. I would suggest their targets would be Aberdeenshire East, Banffshire and Buchan Coast, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, Angus North and Mearns, Angus South, Perthshire North, Perthshire South and Kinross-Shire, Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh Southern.
Some of these are a serious stretch, some are bordering on fantasy but it is only 10. It is not enough to become the largest party. I don't think the Tories have topped out but I really cannot see them breaking into Glasgow or the surrounding conurbations where most Scots live. To get to largest party they need to change their shape. I still think the Unionist Party is the way forward.
The Tories don't quite need to be largest party - the Lib Dems in Orkney, Shetland, Edinburgh West and list seats can make up the difference.
@JGForsyth: Boris really throwing himself into the Brexit campaign next week. Big speech Monday, then 6 week national bus tour https://t.co/Lp0vMQKgp7
Needs to not only have Leave win but be able to argue he was key to them doing so, so best move for him to go big.
I thought he might do this.
And he has no choice. He has to lead from the front, fight hard, and run this close.
Or he's finished.
I should add that the pay-off for Boris if Leave do win, say 52:48, and Gove doesn't go for leader is that Boris *is* in poll position for next PM. I think Cameron would stand down in the autumn (not immediately so as not to spook the markets) and Boris's leadership campaign would build over the summer, whilst Gove did the heavy lifting on the negotiations.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
Are you for real? I read the Morning Star somtimes, and look at CNN sometimes. The resemblance is less than obvious.
True, there's occasionally some interesting and fresh reporting in the Morning Star.
Many years ago I was at a Conservative annual conference. An organisation I campaign for had a stall and a big fringe meeting. I was astonished to see how many copies of the Morning Star were on sale at the paper stands and were being bought by delegates. Presumably for the lolz.
I last read thoroughly the Morning Star from 30th July 1981 (Doing an introductory course in Computer Science for my 2nd year at Uni).
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
Are you for real? I read the Morning Star somtimes, and look at CNN sometimes. The resemblance is less than obvious.
True, there's occasionally some interesting and fresh reporting in the Morning Star.
Many years ago I was at a Conservative annual conference. An organisation I campaign for had a stall and a big fringe meeting. I was astonished to see how many copies of the Morning Star were on sale at the paper stands and were being bought by delegates. Presumably for the lolz.
Geoff, what's your view on how Gibraltarians are splitting for Brexit? 80/20 to Remain?
Mr. Royale, if Boris maintains his recent form then him being front and centre for Leave is likely to prove a hindrance rather than a help.
I agree. But, reading this, it sounds like Boris has heard that message:
"On Monday morning, both men will give speeches setting out their arguments.
Cameron will remind voters of his central campaign message that Britain is richer and more secure inside the European Union. While Boris, right, will make the “liberal, cosmopolitan case” for leaving the EU.
He will also take on Cameron’s renegotiation, arguing it falls far short of the fundamental reform the PM said he would deliver.
This is the week that Boris really throws himself into the Brexit debate. Until now he has been constrained in how much campaigning he could do. He was Mayor of London and felt obliged to devote most of his time trying to elect a Tory successor.
But now he can devote himself fully to the EU fight.
He will hit the road in a red bus for Vote Leave, conducting a six-week nationwide tour.
This road trip will be very Boris.
It won’t be all controlled photo-opps or questions from carefully selected aud- iences, but rather there will be walkabouts and town hall meetings.
“He’s not just going to talk to handpicked audiences.
“He’s going to try to persuade real people,” one Vote Leave source tells me.
The aim is to create a clear contrast to Cameron’s more sanitised campaigning.
So far, Boris’s enemies, especially the Tory ones, have been delighting in his sticky start to the campaign.
But Boris is now in full Brexit mode – and there are few politicians better on the campaign trail than he is. "
One thing we know about Boris is this: he hates to be a loser and fights hard when he has to.
Will it make a decisive difference?
Dunno. But the key objective for him must be to neutralise Cameron's clear appeal to floating swing voters, so he can be charismatic but he's got to keep it sober too.
Note "richer cosmopolitan case" - this is important, and plays to his cross-party appeal (that he had on that same basis) as London Mayor too.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
Mr. Royale, if Boris maintains his recent form then him being front and centre for Leave is likely to prove a hindrance rather than a help.
I agree. But, reading this, it sounds like Boris has heard that message:
"On Monday morning, both men will give speeches setting out their arguments.
Cameron will remind voters of his central campaign message that Britain is richer and more secure inside the European Union. While Boris, right, will make the “liberal, cosmopolitan case” for leaving the EU.
He will also take on Cameron’s renegotiation, arguing it falls far short of the fundamental reform the PM said he would deliver.
This is the week that Boris really throws himself into the Brexit debate. Until now he has been constrained in how much campaigning he could do. He was Mayor of London and felt obliged to devote most of his time trying to elect a Tory successor.
But now he can devote himself fully to the EU fight.
He will hit the road in a red bus for Vote Leave, conducting a six-week nationwide tour.
This road trip will be very Boris.
It won’t be all controlled photo-opps or questions from carefully selected aud- iences, but rather there will be walkabouts and town hall meetings.
“He’s not just going to talk to handpicked audiences.
“He’s going to try to persuade real people,” one Vote Leave source tells me.
The aim is to create a clear contrast to Cameron’s more sanitised campaigning.
So far, Boris’s enemies, especially the Tory ones, have been delighting in his sticky start to the campaign.
But Boris is now in full Brexit mode – and there are few politicians better on the campaign trail than he is. "
One thing we know about Boris is this: he hates to be a loser and fights hard when he has to.
Will it make a decisive difference?
Dunno. But the key objective for him must be to neutralise Cameron's clear appeal to floating swing voters, so he can be charismatic but he's got to keep it sober too.
Note "richer cosmopolitan case" - this is important, and plays to his cross-party appeal (that he had on that same basis) as London Mayor too.
Boris doing open audience events, that is a recipe for disaster.
Apparently Corbyn's man has won Bristol Mayoral election.
People I know in Bristol say Labour threw everything at it, their people were all over the place on this one.
I know the arguments why the results in this locals round are a bad omen for Labour 2020, but they were not so bad as to enable anti-Corbynista to use as a reason why Corbyn obviously needs to go, and part of me wonders if the hanging on in the south and handful of easy wins in big places like Bristol (even if predicted) and London may start to change the narrative a bit. Fact is, Corbyn is preventing wins in the heartlands and is even improving matters in some of them - while other places may not like Corbyn in the same manner, if people start to think Lab under him are winners, some numbers may come back, in a Trump like manner (I feel part of his later success has to be people backing the one who appears to be a winner).
Of course this ignores Scotland, but then most people do.
I still remember that David Herdson thread that predicted an utter catastrophe for Labour in the local elections. It had a table that projected Labour close to 10 points behind in the national equivalent vote, and I still remember the talk from early this year of Labour losing up to 1000 seats.
Even last month PB had this set of gloomy predictions, which Labour beat:
I don't think I used the phrase 'utter catastrophe' in terms of my expectations for Labour but it's true that they did better than I expected. That said, they've just become the first major opposition party to fail to make local council gains in a non-GE year since 1985 so it's hardly a performance to write home about. And exceeding expectations in England and Wales has to be offset by a fullscale disaster in Scotland.
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
If the Tories are to form the opposition to the SNP for the foreseeable future it is worth thinking about where they can go from here. I would suggest their targets would be Aberdeenshire East, Banffshire and Buchan Coast, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, Angus North and Mearns, Angus South, Perthshire North, Perthshire South and Kinross-Shire, Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh Southern.
Some of these are a serious stretch, some are bordering on fantasy but it is only 10. It is not enough to become the largest party. I don't think the Tories have topped out but I really cannot see them breaking into Glasgow or the surrounding conurbations where most Scots live. To get to largest party they need to change their shape. I still think the Unionist Party is the way forward.
Yes. What you are really talking about David is the Tories getting back to where they were thirty years or so ago. I think it is realistic, albeit hard - and it is about securing a solid second place, not winning.
I'd add Moray to your list.
You're right. I forgot Moray. But basically yes. Rural Scotland is up for grabs as the SNP look more Glasgow orientated and edge further centre left to complete the demolition of Labour but they are always outnumbered by the city dwellers.
How do the Tories win over the LDs in rural areas?
In the same way as they have in the borders. By being very clear about the Union, socially liberal and economically pragmatic.
Qn from David Herdson "Are we witnessing the death of Scottish Labour?" Yes we probably are. I agree with David that union funding is key. If this really did drop by 80% or move to the SNP within 4 years, then Labour are probably finished in Scotland. Odd thing is why the membership boost to Labour last year left out Scotland? Were they all lost to the SNP.
That said, for me the more important question is how long will the very broad church of the SNP be sustainable? Adding more responsibility to Scots Govt from devolution, will help absorb the tensions and ambitions but after circa 2020 the left vs right and statist vs libertarian tensions will explode the party IMHO.
Apparently Corbyn's man has won Bristol Mayoral election.
People I know in Bristol say Labour threw everything at it, their people were all over the place on this one.
I know the arguments why the results in this locals round are a bad omen for Labour 2020, but they were not so bad as to enable anti-Corbynista to use as a reason why Corbyn obviously needs to go, and part of me wonders if the hanging on in the south and handful of easy wins in big places like Bristol (even if predicted) and London may start to change the narrative a bit. Fact is, Corbyn is preventing wins in the heartlands and is even improving matters in some of them - while other places may not like Corbyn in the same manner, if people start to think Lab under him are winners, some numbers may come back, in a Trump like manner (I feel part of his later success has to be people backing the one who appears to be a winner).
Of course this ignores Scotland, but then most people do.
I still remember that David Herdson thread that predicted an utter catastrophe for Labour in the local elections. It had a table that projected Labour close to 10 points behind in the national equivalent vote, and I still remember the talk from early this year of Labour losing up to 1000 seats.
Even last month PB had this set of gloomy predictions, which Labour beat:
I don't think I used the phrase 'utter catastrophe' in terms of my expectations for Labour but it's true that they did better than I expected. That said, they've just become the first major opposition party to fail to make local council gains in a non-GE year since 1985 so it's hardly a performance to write home about. And exceeding expectations in England and Wales has to be offset by a fullscale disaster in Scotland.
The early start to the referendum debate by Cameron and Osborne saved a few hundred Labour councillor seats.
Qn from David Herdson "Are we witnessing the death of Scottish Labour?" Yes we probably are. I agree with David that union funding is key. If this really did drop by 80% or move to the SNP within 4 years, then Labour are probably finished in Scotland. Odd thing is why the membership boost to Labour last year left out Scotland? Were they all lost to the SNP.
That said, for me the more important question is how long will the very broad church of the SNP be sustainable? Adding more responsibility to Scots Govt from devolution, will help absorb the tensions and ambitions but after circa 2020 the left vs right and statist vs libertarian tensions will explode the party IMHO.
So Labour should just hang on till then when it can pick up as many of the pieces as it wants? (Not Malcolm G, obviously...)
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In hindsight Scottish Labour could have kept Jim Murphy, gone hard to get the unionist vote, which probably would have been enough to keep second in the Holyrood elections. He then could have stood down mid term to be replaced by Kezia, who may be more palatable to SNP switchers in the Westminster elections. That probably would have left Scottish Labour in a better place.
Yet another religiously motivated killing in Bangladesh...
Sufi Muslim leader found hacked to death in a Bangladesh mango grove in suspected Islamist killing - two weeks after ISIS murdered a professor in the same district
Apparently Corbyn's man has won Bristol Mayoral election.
People I know in Bristol say Labour threw everything at it, their people were all over the place on this one.
I know the arguments why the results in this locals round are a bad omen for Labour 2020, but they were not so bad as to enable anti-Corbynista to use as a reason why Corbyn obviously needs to go, and part of me wonders if the hanging on in the south and handful of easy wins in big places like Bristol (even if predicted) and London may start to change the narrative a bit. Fact is, Corbyn is preventing wins in the heartlands and is even improving matters in some of them - while other places may not like Corbyn in the same manner, if people start to think Lab under him are winners, some numbers may come back, in a Trump like manner (I feel part of his later success has to be people backing the one who appears to be a winner).
Of course this ignores Scotland, but then most people do.
I still remember that David Herdson thread that predicted an utter catastrophe for Labour in the local elections. It had a table that projected Labour close to 10 points behind in the national equivalent vote, and I still remember the talk from early this year of Labour losing up to 1000 seats.
Even last month PB had this set of gloomy predictions, which Labour beat:
I don't think I used the phrase 'utter catastrophe' in terms of my expectations for Labour but it's true that they did better than I expected. That said, they've just become the first major opposition party to fail to make local council gains in a non-GE year since 1985 so it's hardly a performance to write home about. And exceeding expectations in England and Wales has to be offset by a fullscale disaster in Scotland.
The early start to the referendum debate by Cameron and Osborne saved a few hundred Labour councillor seats.
"A few hundred" is probably an exaggeration but it will certainly have helped Labour.
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In addition the gross percentage for constituencies is really not the point. Labour suffer from having their vote much more evenly spread. They got substantially more votes than the tories in Scotland in 2015 but the same number of seats. Next Westminster the Tories are very likely to win all 3 border seats for a start. I don't see Labour matching that even if they get more votes overall.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Nicola could get a referendum bill through the parliament if she wants to.
Not really.
To get the Greens to support it, she would need to abandon a whole bunch of her more sensible policies.
She may be stupid, but she's not that daft.
The SNP will now regularly have to rely on the pro-indy Greens, who are as bonkers a bunch of ragtag cranks as politics has seen. How will Sturgeon the centrist manage this relationship? What does a big mainstream government have in common with a fringe movement that is to the wellbeing of the economy what the Campbells were to the MacDonalds in the settlements of Glencoe?
You reckon if the polls were 60-40 for independence she wouldn't go shit or bust for a second referendum?
But it would not be her decision! Cameron has already rejected the idea of a further Referendum in this Parliament and rightly so.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
People voting for their own self interest! I'm shocked, I tell 'ya.
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
There's an element of that, but I think it's more that people with higher education tend, other things being equal, to do well, and it gives them the space to think about social solidarity or whatever you like to call it. People in medium/low-waged jobs on the edge of financial disaster often feel they can't afford to worry about that, they need to vote for whoever will keep the economy going.
The fragile state of the economy is what I'd really worry about if I was the next Tory leader, more than all the issues that are immediately in front of us of Europe, academies, refugees, etc. - the balance of trade and structural problems are seriously crap and not getting any better.
Labour in Scotland has to hang on in there and wait. The SNP is soon going to have to make some real choices. Not everyone who currently votes SNP is going to be pleased with what is decided. There's no going back to how it used to be, but that does not mean the end. The SNP's only goal is to create an international frontier between Scotland and England. That is not a left of centre policy. Neither is cutting taxes for the best off in austere times. Neither is subsidising the middle class at the expense of the poor. Opportunities will arise. The trick will be to stay disciplined and focused, so and be ready when they arise.
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In addition the gross percentage for constituencies is really not the point. Labour suffer from having their vote much more evenly spread. They got substantially more votes than the tories in Scotland in 2015 but the same number of seats. Next Westminster the Tories are very likely to win all 3 border seats for a start. I don't see Labour matching that even if they get more votes overall.
I can quite easily see Labour at circa 28% in 2020 with the SNP at 41/42%. Still a big SNP lead but it should see Labour nearer 10 MPs than the single member they ended up with in 2015.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
Yes but more graduates work in the private sector than the public sector, as you say postgraduates tend to work in academia, research or the civil service, areas which want as much public funding as possible
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Educated people are as influenced by their backgrounds as anyone else. I know plenty of graduates working in senior private sector positions who vote Labour, or did before the hard left takeover. They are usually from working or lower middle class families and were the first in their families to go to university.
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In addition the gross percentage for constituencies is really not the point. Labour suffer from having their vote much more evenly spread. They got substantially more votes than the tories in Scotland in 2015 but the same number of seats. Next Westminster the Tories are very likely to win all 3 border seats for a start. I don't see Labour matching that even if they get more votes overall.
I can quite easily see Labour at circa 28% in 2020 with the SNP at 41/42%. Still a big SNP lead but it should see Labour nearer 10 MPs than the single member they ended up with in 2015.
What odds would you be offering on there being more Tory MPs than Labour MPs in the next Westminster election?
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Not what the research says. e.g. "As in the United States, university graduates are the most likely to vote for progressive parties. If we combine the votes for Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru into a “left” total and Conservatives and Ukip into a “right” total, then graduates voted left 57%, right 41%. "
Rather than Ken standing for Tooting, as has ruined his reputation, perhaps they could find an A. Hitler. He seems to have public recognition these days, just look at how popular search term in google .
I worked with a chief electrician in Beirut who was called Hitler. I assumed it related to the way he ran the electrical department but it wasn't. His brother was called Rommel. They were a bit puzzled by my surprise. They said if he'd been called 'Hobeika' they'd have understood
There are quite a few Spanish blokes of a certain age called Adolfo. They tend to have been born in the early years of the Franco dictatorship.
Are any Germans called Adolf these days? I don't think I've ever come across one.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
People voting for their own self interest! I'm shocked, I tell 'ya.
Of course, but I never cease to be shocked how many 'intelligent' graduates think that their voting choices are because they are informed and clever, and those of the great unwashed are totally wrong because they are stupid.
A lot of people (some in my peer group) seriously believe this.
And I agree the Trade Union funding will be of utmost impotence. for a union especially a union of government workers, which now make up 59% of all TU members, it only logical to support a party that is in government now, or likely to be shortly. I don't know what proportion of TU members work for the Scottish Government, compared to UK government But I imagine it will be increasing. will the TU switch support? on mass probably not, but will new Scottish unions emerge or branches brake away, possibly.
In terms of the party's position, the next locale government election are in 2017, and will use the Single Transferable Vote, a system perfect for tactical voting! at the moment SLab have 395 to SCons 115, in many places all the Tory's need to do is not get eliminated be for SLab, something which on last weeks results is very possible!
Labour in Scotland has to hang on in there and wait. The SNP is soon going to have to make some real choices. Not everyone who currently votes SNP is going to be pleased with what is decided. There's no going back to how it used to be, but that does not mean the end. The SNP's only goal is to create an international frontier between Scotland and England. That is not a left of centre policy. Neither is cutting taxes for the best off in austere times. Neither is subsidising the middle class at the expense of the poor. Opportunities will arise. The trick will be to stay disciplined and focused, so and be ready when they arise.
Some sense in that but they seem to be incapable of drawing up a longer term plan and investing in a re-building job. Their current Scottish Leader does not seem to have a plan and Corbyn is not going to be much help.
@JGForsyth: Lots of walkabouts in Boris’s national tour, aim is to create a contrast with Cameron’s more sanitised campaigning https://t.co/Lp0vMQKgp7
Boris in his comfort zone again. Some funny photos, friendly punters, witty one liners. No debates, no press conferences, very few in-depth interviews.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Not what the research says. e.g. "As in the United States, university graduates are the most likely to vote for progressive parties. If we combine the votes for Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru into a “left” total and Conservatives and Ukip into a “right” total, then graduates voted left 57%, right 41%. "
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In addition the gross percentage for constituencies is really not the point. Labour suffer from having their vote much more evenly spread. They got substantially more votes than the tories in Scotland in 2015 but the same number of seats. Next Westminster the Tories are very likely to win all 3 border seats for a start. I don't see Labour matching that even if they get more votes overall.
I can quite easily see Labour at circa 28% in 2020 with the SNP at 41/42%. Still a big SNP lead but it should see Labour nearer 10 MPs than the single member they ended up with in 2015.
What odds would you be offering on there being more Tory MPs than Labour MPs in the next Westminster election?
Alas -am not a Betting guy at all! I will not dismiss that as a possibility - indeed it nearly happened in 2015. I would simply repeat that given that Labour polled 22.6% for Holyrood this week - at the higher end of forecasts really - it is more than likely that they would have reached 25% had it been a Westminster election. For the latter, the SNP might have been at 44/45%.
Two very good pieces from David Herdson, well done and thank you.
If Labour is finished in Scotland effectively its finished full stop, it can't win a GE and is proving to be an ineffective opposition. I say good riddance to bad rubbish with a heavy heart, there are millions of decent people that vote Labour and deserve representation, they've been let down for too long. The danger is leaving us with a smug, self serving Conservative govt in perpetuity and I hope the EU tears that apart terminally too.
I hope, with not much confidence, that 2020 sees parties campaigning on more transparent and honest lines, the break up and reformation of the Labour Party would be a start.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Of course, that has little to do with innate intelligence, education or ability and more to do with economic self-interest.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
People voting for their own self interest! I'm shocked, I tell 'ya.
Of course, but I never cease to be shocked how many 'intelligent' graduates think that their voting choices are because they are informed and clever, and those of the great unwashed are totally wrong because they are stupid.
A lot of people (some in my peer group) seriously believe this.
Those people obviously do not have lower seconds in Philosophy.
Two very interesting & thought-provoking articles, David, for which many thanks.
As a 'bit of a lefty', last week I found myself quite unable to vote for a PCC candidate simply on the grounds that he was sailing under the Labour banner.
A PCC really ought not to be party-affiliated, in my view. However, in this place at least the Labour candidate would have been a good choice - apart from his affiliation.
I just couldn't bring myself to give even one vote that the present Labour party might take encouragement from.
Two very good pieces from David Herdson, well done and thank you.
If Labour is finished in Scotland effectively its finished full stop, it can't win a GE and is proving to be an ineffective opposition. I say good riddance to bad rubbish with a heavy heart, there are millions of decent people that vote Labour and deserve representation, they've been let down for too long. The danger is leaving us with a smug, self serving Conservative govt in perpetuity and I hope the EU tears that apart terminally too.
I hope, with not much confidence, that 2020 sees parties campaigning on more transparent and honest lines, the break up and reformation of the Labour Party would be a start.
Not sure why Labour is finished if it doesn't carry Scotland. Without a Scottish seat Labour would have had a majority in 1997 and 2001. And in 2005, it would still have been better off than Cameron in 2010.
"... the balance of trade and structural problems are seriously crap and not getting any better."
Very true and there seems to be nobody in Parliament who seems to want to talk about, let alone in government wanting to do something about them.
Even on here the voices raising these issues are ignored or shouted down. Osborne is the "near perfect chancellor" we are told. Nearly perfect at ignoring everything that doesn't help his own career, possibly; nearly perfect at steering the economy towards the cliff for certain.
David, I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
On constituency vote, Labour finished second, by 22.6% to 22%. However, that's not the basis on which the election was run and parties will campaign to maximise their return under the rules in play. I've not checked but I expect that the main reason is that there are a lot more seats where the Conservatives are sub-10% than Labour.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
In addition the gross percentage for constituencies is really not the point. Labour suffer from having their vote much more evenly spread. They got substantially more votes than the tories in Scotland in 2015 but the same number of seats. Next Westminster the Tories are very likely to win all 3 border seats for a start. I don't see Labour matching that even if they get more votes overall.
I can quite easily see Labour at circa 28% in 2020 with the SNP at 41/42%. Still a big SNP lead but it should see Labour nearer 10 MPs than the single member they ended up with in 2015.
There will be a portion of the Unionist party's voters who will vote for whichever of the 3 main unions party's they think has the best chance of beating the SNP in there area, given the upcoming change in Westminster constituency's, and the resent serge in Tory support, it will not always be clearer which is the best placed to defeat the SNP, but I suspect that, compared to 2015, and all other things being equal, more will be tactically voting Tory then Lab, and there for the total SLab vote at 2020 may be lower than 2015.
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Not what the research says. e.g. "As in the United States, university graduates are the most likely to vote for progressive parties. If we combine the votes for Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru into a “left” total and Conservatives and Ukip into a “right” total, then graduates voted left 57%, right 41%. "
No, as those figures show the Tories won graduates with 35% and it is debateable whether UKIP are centre right, indeed the LDs were centre right at the last election and they had their best result with graduates. Figures from the US are even clearer, in the 2012 election Romney won 51% of college graduates, Obama won 55% of postgraduates and 51% of those without a college degree, as I said, the centre right win graduates, the centre left the most and least educated http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
Sadiq Khan is a surprisingly big story globally, BTW.
American media going big on how the "Trump-style" Tory campaign backfired.
A minor headline on the CNN website does not really count as 'going big', other US media barely mention it
1) CNN so far left - they are the Morning Star of American gutter journalism. 2) Trump hasn't engaged in Islamophobia - his message has been mainly positive - but targeted at the common man, not the intelligentsia or pandering to minority groups.
It has been targeted at the white working class, as Boris managed to convert to his cause but Zac failed to. However Boris was also able to win centrist voters and the jury is still out whether Trump can do the same
I think you mean WWC males.
One reason the Right is so bad at education policy is that the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right (except for the few who, like Trump, turn Daddy's millions into billions).
One reason the more you educate people the less they vote for the Right is because they are taught by leftie professors and lecturers. It tends to then take them 20 years to work out that liberal economic policy, people taking responsibility and a small state is the best way to be.
As I said educated people do not necessarily vote for the left, graduates tend to vote for the centre right, postgraduates and those with few or no qualifications for the left, the left really tend to win the most and the least educated, the right those in the middle
Educated people are as influenced by their backgrounds as anyone else. I know plenty of graduates working in senior private sector positions who vote Labour, or did before the hard left takeover. They are usually from working or lower middle class families and were the first in their families to go to university.
They are exceptions for every rule, there are even some graduates in the public sector who vote Tory!
Comments
Apart from the 8 polls showing Yes ahead, 2 straight ties and 25 indicating a statistical tie I guess you mean?
Sympathies to JohnO - losing is never fun. Is the winning Resident politically flavoured, or just a local wanting to serve?
Many years ago I was at a Conservative annual conference. An organisation I campaign for had a stall and a big fringe meeting. I was astonished to see how many copies of the Morning Star were on sale at the paper stands and were being bought by delegates. Presumably for the lolz.
As mentioned passim, it wasn't really about the money (seven pounds profit is not really something to boast about - which of course won't stop me!) it was simply about acclimatising myself to the whole betting experience: do research, make prediction, walk in shop, give money to man, specify bet, get slip, walk out, see prediction realised, walk into other shop, give slip to other man, get money, walk out, buy burger. The whole development cycle, if you will.
Now that that has happened and I have developed a rudimentary "muscle memory", I can roll this out with other bets, the size of which will vary according to confidence and the odds. It'll never be anything to write home about (I am plainly risk averse) but I now have a string to my bow that I did not have previously.
Anyway, we shall see in due course no doubt. But if anything does come to light, will the "media" report it, or keep quiet, because of not being seen to be ------?
Sufi Muslim leader found hacked to death in a Bangladesh mango grove in suspected Islamist killing - two weeks after ISIS murdered a professor in the same district
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3578406/Bangladesh-Sufi-Muslim-killed-suspected-Islamist-attack.html
A woman on the microphone speaking now....telling people to stay seated. If you stay in your seat, you must stay for 15 minutes. Otherwise leave now...
And he has no choice. He has to lead from the front, fight hard, and run this close.
Or he's finished.
Corbyn spokesman: [1h20 later] Jeremy is in Bristol for our mayoral victory.
Telegraph: He was in his house all morning.
Corbyn spokesman: On his way. Result this afternoon.
Telegraph: He could have gone to Sadiq Khan's event at 11.30am, why didn't he?
[No answer]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/sadiq-khans-london-mayoral-win-tories-will-not-back-down-on-fear/
They aren't very good at this lying lark...
He's a thoroughly decent chap who was (and is) devoted to public service.
I do hope his political journey doesn't end here!
So, don't tear up those betslips just yet.
sorry to hear the news and best wishes for what you do next
Noddy Marries Big-ears
Or is it more nuanced than that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDhjsrQJYcM
"On Monday morning, both men will give speeches setting out their arguments.
Cameron will remind voters of his central campaign message that Britain is richer and more secure inside the European Union. While Boris, right, will make the “liberal, cosmopolitan case” for leaving the EU.
He will also take on Cameron’s renegotiation, arguing it falls far short of the fundamental reform the PM said he would deliver.
This is the week that Boris really throws himself into the Brexit debate. Until now he has been constrained in how much campaigning he could do. He was Mayor of London and felt obliged to devote most of his time trying to elect a Tory successor.
But now he can devote himself fully to the EU fight.
He will hit the road in a red bus for Vote Leave, conducting a six-week nationwide tour.
This road trip will be very Boris.
It won’t be all controlled photo-opps or questions from carefully selected aud- iences, but rather there will be walkabouts and town hall meetings.
“He’s not just going to talk to handpicked audiences.
“He’s going to try to persuade real people,” one Vote Leave source tells me.
The aim is to create a clear contrast to Cameron’s more sanitised campaigning.
So far, Boris’s enemies, especially the Tory ones, have been delighting in his sticky start to the campaign.
But Boris is now in full Brexit mode – and there are few politicians better on the campaign trail than he is. "
One thing we know about Boris is this: he hates to be a loser and fights hard when he has to.
Will it make a decisive difference?
Dunno. But the key objective for him must be to neutralise Cameron's clear appeal to floating swing voters, so he can be charismatic but he's got to keep it sober too.
Note "richer cosmopolitan case" - this is important, and plays to his cross-party appeal (that he had on that same basis) as London Mayor too.
George Ferguson (Bristol First) 36.5%
The winner has just thanked even the MEP of the region
I don't think the Tories beat Labour in Scotland on the basis of the constituency % votes. That is surely the most significant basis for any comparison in relation to Westminster elections. Had the latter taken place on Thursday I suspect Labour would have managed 25% , and I suspect that after a further 4 years of an SNP administration 28% - 30% is quite likely in 2020.Labour could well emerge with 6 - 10 MPs next time together with 3/4 Tories.
Yes we probably are. I agree with David that union funding is key. If this really did drop by 80% or move to the SNP within 4 years, then Labour are probably finished in Scotland. Odd thing is why the membership boost to Labour last year left out Scotland? Were they all lost to the SNP.
That said, for me the more important question is how long will the very broad church of the SNP be sustainable? Adding more responsibility to Scots Govt from devolution, will help absorb the tensions and ambitions but after circa 2020 the left vs right and statist vs libertarian tensions will explode the party IMHO.
As for the future, most depends on the SNP, how they act and whether they give good opportunities to exploit. Thereafter, the question will be who can best exploit them. On that score, Labour is still floundering. Perhaps they can get their game together in four years - Kezia is still relatively new to the role - but as long as Sturgeon continues to look after Labour's former voters, what pitch can Labour put forward to attract their voters back?
Several split wards
But it would not be her decision! Cameron has already rejected the idea of a further Referendum in this Parliament and rightly so.
Graduates working in professional services in the private sector will tend to the centre-right. Those in the public sector to the centre-left.
Post-graduates concentrated in the world of academia will tend more strongly for public funding, and the Left.
The fragile state of the economy is what I'd really worry about if I was the next Tory leader, more than all the issues that are immediately in front of us of Europe, academies, refugees, etc. - the balance of trade and structural problems are seriously crap and not getting any better.
e.g. "As in the United States, university graduates are the most likely to vote for progressive parties. If we combine the votes for Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru into a “left” total and Conservatives and Ukip into a “right” total, then graduates voted left 57%, right 41%. "
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
Are any Germans called Adolf these days? I don't think I've ever come across one.
A lot of people (some in my peer group) seriously believe this.
And I agree the Trade Union funding will be of utmost impotence. for a union especially a union of government workers, which now make up 59% of all TU members, it only logical to support a party that is in government now, or likely to be shortly. I don't know what proportion of TU members work for the Scottish Government, compared to UK government But I imagine it will be increasing. will the TU switch support? on mass probably not, but will new Scottish unions emerge or branches brake away, possibly.
In terms of the party's position, the next locale government election are in 2017, and will use the Single Transferable Vote, a system perfect for tactical voting! at the moment SLab have 395 to SCons 115, in many places all the Tory's need to do is not get eliminated be for SLab, something which on last weeks results is very possible!
DUP 38 seats
Sinn Fein 28 (-1)
UUP 16
SDLP 12 (-2)
Alliance 8
Greens 2 (+1)
People Before Profit 2 (+2)
Traditional Unionist Voice 1
Independent 1
If Labour is finished in Scotland effectively its finished full stop, it can't win a GE and is proving to be an ineffective opposition. I say good riddance to bad rubbish with a heavy heart, there are millions of decent people that vote Labour and deserve representation, they've been let down for too long. The danger is leaving us with a smug, self serving Conservative govt in perpetuity and I hope the EU tears that apart terminally too.
I hope, with not much confidence, that 2020 sees parties campaigning on more transparent and honest lines, the break up and reformation of the Labour Party would be a start.
seat changes Con -8 LD -2 Lab -2 ( 12 seats fewer ) equates to roughly 2 LD gains from Con
Lib Dems still way ahead in terms of gains in the English district council elections. Conservatives and Labour the big losers.
Go on, smile for once.
Two very interesting & thought-provoking articles, David, for which many thanks.
As a 'bit of a lefty', last week I found myself quite unable to vote for a PCC candidate simply on the grounds that he was sailing under the Labour banner.
A PCC really ought not to be party-affiliated, in my view. However, in this place at least the Labour candidate would have been a good choice - apart from his affiliation.
I just couldn't bring myself to give even one vote that the present Labour party might take encouragement from.
"... the balance of trade and structural problems are seriously crap and not getting any better."
Very true and there seems to be nobody in Parliament who seems to want to talk about, let alone in government wanting to do something about them.
Even on here the voices raising these issues are ignored or shouted down. Osborne is the "near perfect chancellor" we are told. Nearly perfect at ignoring everything that doesn't help his own career, possibly; nearly perfect at steering the economy towards the cliff for certain.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls