Except of course a band 5 nurse is paid £300 more in Scotland than in England under the Tories because the SNP have abided by the independent Pay Review unlike the coalition and then the Tory Government. In other words the SNP in Government have done what the leaked Labour manifesto promises to do.
It may be a reason that public satisfaction with the NHS is at 90 per cent in Scotland compared to 77 per cent in England.
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
I presume those are the ones from about a month ago - in the fast moving world of Scottish politics, who knows what they are now. Ruth's cunning racisty, bigoty, internet trolly strategy may be bearing fruit.
Absolute filth...Cancer in the labour party....The sooner the sensible people likes of SO on here get back control of the party the better for everybody.
By the way, if anyone's interested, I'll be taking up a new job next month as Head of Policy for the non-partisan Compassion in World Farming., who work to oppose factory farming. I think that will mark my definitive retirement from party politics, though I expect I'll still comment as a detached observer. It's been fun!
We live in a would were some people still go hungry, the population is rising and the amount of land fixed. and you are happy to tell the would, even boast that you are going to work for an organisation that will oppose efficiently producing food on a small area or land.
I am not saying you do not have a moral compass, you clearly do, I just don't understand it.
I understand why people oppose fox hunting, or support the state redistributing wealth, I will not always agree, but I understand. I can even understand wishing to have some regulation around factory farming, to stop or limit, adverse side affects, even when I think those regulations are ineffective.
but to simply oppose, as you put it, and even if the pressure group, word things differently, you in your own words simply describe it as 'opposing' That's a mystery to me.
Pleasing your own perseverance for food to be produced in one way or another, about somebody else's preference for enough food to keep themselves and there kids alive, is beyond me.
I enjoy reading your posts on hear, and am shore you would be a better MP than some in parliament. But I can not wish you well in your new job.
Well if the concern is ensuring people have enough to eat, we should be working to reduce animal farming globally as much as possible - most of the time the land could be more efficiently and intensely used for arable farming, and we don't need meat to live, much better that it be replaced by more crop production.
OK pb'ers. I'm asking you to donate three minutes of your time in training my CrowdScores comments AI. As many of you are CrowdScores users, you will know that a lot of people write "amusing" comments like "Chelsea fans are all coksackers". Occasionally though, people write genuinely informative commentary about the game such as "Great pass from Mertasacker, Man Utd were very lucky the ball ricocheted into touch" or somesuch.
So, I thought I'd play with Google's TensorFlow deep learning system. I have got the 70,000 most interesting English language comments pulled out via a bit of Bayesian filtering. Now I'd like to separate them again into the "interesting" and the "boring".
So, please could you go to: http://survey.amoral.org and click on "good" or "bad" for each comment until you've done about 50. (It'll take you three minutes.)
(I shall probably outsource this to Mechanical Turk longer term, but I thought you guys could do a good first pass.)
THANK YOU!
Eager to help, I went there but unfortunately it's in a language I don't understand. Sorry.
I still find it pretty hard to believe that Labour can match their performance under Ed Miliband in terms of the popular vote. In Scotland their vote is likely to be down again. In 2015 they got 24.3% of the vote, they will do very well to break 20% this time. In Wales they got 36.9%, can't see them matching that either.
In England Ed actually did quite well, hence the gain in seats. This time there are going to be losses, possibly 50+. There is a lot of polling evidence showing direct Labour to Tory switchers outside London and the north west. The Lib Dems are being pathetic but they are not losing vote share to Labour. How do they get to 30.4% of the vote? I just don't see it. Corbyn will do well to match Brown's 29%. In fact I don't think he will.
Brown polled 29.7% in GB . Miliband managed 31.2%.
Also I wouldn't spend too much time citing Cllr Arthur of Edinburgh. Yesterday he reckoned it to be a "privilege" listening to John Prescott in KirkcaldyJ! He probably should have been out canvassing in Edinburgh instead of making up numbers for a Labour TV audience in Fife.
Someone said that Gordon Brown makes a "single transferable speech" these days. In fact the real point is that he makes them in front of a "single transferable audience" - such is Labour's critical weakness on the ground.
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
As I said earlier, I still expect UKIP to poll 1 million votes.
A million votes would put Ukip on a little over 3% of the popular vote, if turnout is similar to two years ago.
The current YouGov does look like an outlier, but only time will tell. If Ukip's final opinion poll VI is somewhere like 5%, then their actual vote share will probably be more like 2%-3%; they've withdrawn in about half of all constituencies, and are standing down in places where they have racked up large votes in 2015 as well as in those areas where they were hopeless.
Meanwhile, the first attempt to work out what the Ukip die-hards will do when they find their party isn't on the ballot paper suggests that this is likely to confer little or no net additional advantage on the Conservatives:
"Regardless of dropout, the swings from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives were much bigger where UKIP did well last time. The stronger the UKIP starting point the more former UKIP voters there were to switch to the Conservatives.
The swings were a bit bigger when UKIP dropped out. But not that much.
...
The reason UKIP dropout had such a small effect on the swings to the Conservatives is that it benefitted all three of the other main parties, it just helped the Conservatives a bit more.
This does not necessarily mean that when UKIP drop out all the other parties get some of their voters. Without any UKIP candidate to support, former UKIP voters may just have abstained, leading to an increase in vote share for all the other candidates. But if that were the case then UKIP dropout should have been associated with lower turnout. If anything, after controlling for the tendency for turnout to increase less where UKIP did best in 2013, the opposite is true.
With so many former UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, it is worthwhile thinking about what kind of UKIP supporter still wants to stick with UKIP. They are likely to be predominantly the ones that are not particularly keen on the Conservatives.
...
In the general election, UKIP dropout is likely to help the Conservatives a little in those seats where UKIP did well last time, but in most places the dropout effect may well be negligible."
The important thing for the Conservatives is that this analysis is evidence against one possible theory of what would happen if the Ukip option were removed from the ballot paper - that being, that the remaining portion of committed Ukip voters were strong anti-Tories, and would defect back to Labour in disproportionate numbers were their preferred party no longer to be available. It seems that the withdrawal of Ukip in Con-Lab marginals should, on average, confer little additional benefit on the Conservatives, but none at all on Labour.
I have just seen a post doing the rounds on face-ache...Basically corbyn is utter crap but he isn't in it for the money and he is "normal human " who once held up a speaker at a demo, so we should vote for him.
I wonder how many normal folk in the UK support the IRA, hamas, Hezbollah...
I have just seen a post doing the rounds on face-ache...Basically corbyn is utter crap but he isn't in it for the money and he is "normal" so we should vote for him.
I wonder how many normal folk in the UK support the IRA, hamas, Hezbollah...
I know a police officer who likes Corbyn because he's different and will take on the rigged system. There's a market for part of his message, it can overcome the rest sometimes.
Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. Any examination of his engagement with Northern Ireland shows this. Two weeks after the Brighton bombing he invited Sinn Fein leaders to the House of Commons. He stood in silence to honour the IRA dead. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. I don't know if Nick Palmer is being naive, disingenuous or dishonest, but he is wrong. Islington, like Camden, was a very Irish and very pro-Republican in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pubs played the Soldiers Song at closing time, there were regular collections for the provisionals and Sinn Fein. You did not get on in the Labour party there without solid Republican credentials. Things have changed, time has moved on, but Corbyn cannot undo his past. It's there and it's clear to see. The Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness because the government told her to. She also shook hands with countless others from all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Show me one photo of Jeremy Corbyn shaking hands with a loyalist or a unionist; one of him meeting them or marching with them. There are none. He regarded them as the enemy.
You forgot to include the British Army and police wounded personnel in your list of people beside whom he did not stand, smiling broadly, let alone shake hands with. In his non-partisan engagement in the cause of peace, that is.
And NPXMP either has a terrible memory or is less than scrupulously honest. With himself, of course.
Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. Any examination of his engagement with Northern Ireland shows this. Two weeks after the Brighton bombing he invited Sinn Fein leaders to the House of Commons. He stood in silence to honour the IRA dead. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. I don't know if Nick Palmer is being naive, disingenuous or dishonest, but he is wrong. Islington, like Camden, was a very Irish and very pro-Republican in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pubs played the Soldiers Song at closing time, there were regular collections for the provisionals and Sinn Fein. You did not get on in the Labour party there without solid Republican credentials. Things have changed, time has moved on, but Corbyn cannot undo his past. It's there and it's clear to see. The Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness because the government told her to. She also shook hands with countless others from all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Show me one photo of Jeremy Corbyn shaking hands with a loyalist or a unionist; one of him meeting them or marching with them. There are none. He regarded them as the enemy.
+100
Question is, what proportion of the voting public are going to either know or care about this come polling day? Over to you, Sir Lynton...
He said what? I'm more stunned by that than him lying, outright, no excuse lying, for not seeing or expecting communist flags at a May Day trade union rally.
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
Re the Fallon ambush, if it was an all party trip - who were the Labour MPs with him? Might be handy to know for their rebuttal?
The point is there is no moral equivalence between Fallon visiting Syria in 2007 when Assad was an ally, or HMQ meeting McGuinness, long after he’d relinquished violence and embraced the democratic route to peace. - Corbyn embraced every terrorist organisation while they were still active and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I have just seen a post doing the rounds on face-ache...Basically corbyn is utter crap but he isn't in it for the money and he is "normal" so we should vote for him.
I wonder how many normal folk in the UK support the IRA, hamas, Hezbollah...
I know a police officer who likes Corbyn because he's different and will take on the rigged system. There's a market for part of his message, it can overcome the rest sometimes.
That's staggering. I can totally understand for instance people saying Ed miliband looks like a bit of a berk but he is a solid family guy with fairly moderate left of centre views and i prefer his world views to the Tories.
Corbyn and john the Marxist openly support terrorists and employ extremists, antisemites and holocaust deniers....
You've already announced [nationalisation policy] We have So tell me about it Discussed taking franchises into public owndership but Details will be set out in manifesto so not prepared to answer that.
Pretty silly. 'The leaks have suggested we'd do this, and I'll confirm we are looking at it, but be patient and wait for the details'
I'd never make it in politics. I'm plenty shameless, but I don't think I have the ability to say some of this stuff with a straight face.
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still be a relative novice at the big time, and he's lost his cool occasionally, which only makes his fans love him more, but he is able to fight through difficulty better than some of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Re the Fallon ambush, if it was an all party trip - who were the Labour MPs with him? Might be handy to know for their rebuttal?
The point is there is no moral equivalence between Fallon visiting Syria in 2007 when Assad was an ally, or HMQ meeting McGuinness, long after he’d relinquished violence and embraced the democratic route to peace. - Corbyn embraced every terrorist organisation while they were still active and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. Any examination of his engagement with Northern Ireland shows this. Two weeks after the Brighton bombing he invited Sinn Fein leaders to the House of Commons. He stood in silence to honour the IRA dead. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. I don't know if Nick Palmer is being naive, disingenuous or dishonest, but he is wrong. Islington, like Camden, was a very Irish and very pro-Republican in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pubs played the Soldiers Song at closing time, there were regular collections for the provisionals and Sinn Fein. You did not get on in the Labour party there without solid Republican credentials. Things have changed, time has moved on, but Corbyn cannot undo his past. It's there and it's clear to see. The Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness because the government told her to. She also shook hands with countless others from all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Show me one photo of Jeremy Corbyn shaking hands with a loyalist or a unionist; one of him meeting them or marching with them. There are none. He regarded them as the enemy.
Superbly well put. This nonsense about the Queen shaking hands with McGuinness is the same tired old line trotted out by Corbyns apologists all over the Internet. People trying to relate his overt support for the IRA and the Queens duty in an official capacity is about as brain dead and as desperate an argument that I've ever heard. Actually, it's a lot worse than that. The people who peddle this line probably agree with Corbyns support of our enemies. Why else would they be his apologists?
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
The funny thing about that remark from Nicolson is that I've been through the pdf of the Ashcroft survey from top to bottom, and can only find two questions about specific persons: best economic team (choice: May/Hammond vs Corbyn/McDonnell) and best PM (choice: May, Corbyn or Farron.) He might be right, and I might not be looking in the right place, but the Scottish leaders don't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the published data.
The answers to those questions are, incidentally, instructive. Broken down by VI, SNP voters were the only group other than Labour voters to back the Labour politicians in both of these cases. Even Plaid Cymru voters favoured the Tory politicians; and in the best PM question, Lib Dem voters ranked the three choices Farron 1st, May 2nd and Corbyn 3rd.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
I almost feel a bit sorry for Julia Hartley Brewer. She is an early breed of journalist troll - people like her, Piers Morgan, and various Daily Mail columnists used to be your go to rent-a-quotes for artificially drumming up controversy. Since then, true trolls like Hopkins and Yiannopoulos have pretty much stolen their bit.
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
The funny thing about that remark from Nicolson is that I've been through the pdf of the Ashcroft survey from top to bottom, and can only find two questions about specific persons: best economic team (choice: May/Hammond vs Corbyn/McDonnell) and best PM (choice: May, Corbyn or Farron.) He might be right, and I might not be looking in the right place, but the Scottish leaders don't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the published data.
The answers to those questions are, incidentally, instructive. Broken down by VI, SNP voters were the only group other than Labour voters to back the Labour politicians in both of these cases. Even Plaid Cymru voters favoured the Tory politicians; and in the best PM question, Lib Dem voters ranked the three choices Farron 1st, May 2nd and Corbyn 3rd.
The massive extremes SNP/Scotland had in the all the Ashcroft questions is fascinating.
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still be a relative novice at the big time, and he's lost his cool occasionally, which only makes his fans love him more, but he is able to fight through difficulty better than some of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Ahahahahahaha!
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader. He has superficially attractive qualities, but he is proudly inflexible, he is incompetent, he is not as 'different' as he pretends, and has been terrible for the Labour Party and would be terrible for the country, and it is baffling to me that tribalistic voting plus those who do love his message could see him win more votes than Ed M, but I cannot discount the possibility, nor can I pretend that every single utterance he makes or how he presents them is laughable or terrible, but that in no way excuses what a bad leader of the opposition he is and would continue to be, and while I think the labour brand will see the party not get wiped out as much as some think, I do believe being severely reduced in the short term would be better for them, if it means Corbyn and his ilk will never again have influence on the party.
If Tim gets ejected from his seat they should #BringBackPaddy
If Tim gets ejected that would imply a complete wipeout of the Liberal Democrats in the HoC. I suppose under those circumstances drafting a leader from the Lords might be construed as a logical step, but also under those circumstances, who would care?
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Farron will lose or anywhere close. The also-ran vote shares are modest in W&L - the Tories would need a large amount of transfers directly from the Lib Dems to take it, and both national polling and the council results in the area suggest that this is highly improbable.
Emily Thornberry shortened in next Lab leader betting but still available at 28-1 BET365 could be long-term value.There is also value to be had outside the favourite in the next Lib Dem leader market too.Tories backed into 11-10 in North Norfolk.Lamb could be in the Tory/ukip kleftiko.Take out Tom Brake 4-1-13-2,who could well be decapitated as well,and you are left with Gregg Who and a number of other who?s.2 names who could easily make it into the frame are Simon Hughes at 40-1 and Vince Cable at 50-1.They are both odds-on to re-take their seats and could also represent short and long-term value.Fallon may not survive this election.
I will be surprised if either Hughes or Cable win their seats!
The funny thing about that remark from Nicolson is that I've been through the pdf of the Ashcroft survey from top to bottom, and can only find two questions about specific persons: best economic team (choice: May/Hammond vs Corbyn/McDonnell) and best PM (choice: May, Corbyn or Farron.) He might be right, and I might not be looking in the right place, but the Scottish leaders don't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the published data.
The answers to those questions are, incidentally, instructive. Broken down by VI, SNP voters were the only group other than Labour voters to back the Labour politicians in both of these cases. Even Plaid Cymru voters favoured the Tory politicians; and in the best PM question, Lib Dem voters ranked the three choices Farron 1st, May 2nd and Corbyn 3rd.
There is this
On a scale from 0 to 100, how do you rate the performance of the following politicians, where zero means ‘terrible’ and 100 means 'excellent'?
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still be a relative novice at the big time, and he's lost his cool occasionally, which only makes his fans love him more, but he is able to fight through difficulty better than some of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Ahahahahahaha!
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader. He has superficially attractive qualities, but he is proudly inflexible, he is incompetent, he is not as 'different' as he pretends, and has been terrible for the Labour Party and would be terrible for the country, and it is baffling to me that tribalistic voting plus those who do love his message could see him win more votes than Ed M, but I cannot discount the possibility, nor can I pretend that every single utterance he makes or how he presents them is laughable or terrible, but that in no way excuses what a bad leader of the opposition he is and would continue to be, and while I think the labour brand will see the party not get wiped out as much as some think, I do believe being severely reduced in the short term would be better for them, if it means Corbyn and his ilk will never again have influence on the party.
By the way, if anyone's interested, I'll be taking up a new job next month as Head of Policy for the non-partisan Compassion in World Farming., who work to oppose factory farming. I think that will mark my definitive retirement from party politics, though I expect I'll still comment as a detached observer. It's been fun!
Congratulations, it is an organisation that I support too.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
I suspect that Yougov has the Tories too high and UKIP a bit low.
As I said earlier, I still expect UKIP to poll 1 million votes.
They will vote about 1.25m
I would be very surprised if UKIP poll less than the 3.1% they managed in 2010.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
I suspect that Yougov has the Tories too high and UKIP a bit low.
As I said earlier, I still expect UKIP to poll 1 million votes.
They will vote about 1.25m
I would be very surprised if UKIP poll less than the 3.1% they managed in 2010.
They had 558 candidates in 2010, just 337 now. Moreover, they have pulled out of a number of seats where they did well to give hardcore Leaver cnaidates a clear run. 2% seems possible albeit not probable.
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still be a relative novice at the big time, and he's lost his cool occasionally, which only makes his fans love him more, but he is able to fight through difficulty better than some of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Ahahahahahaha!
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader. He has superficially attractive qualities, but he is proudly inflexible, he is incompetent, he is not as 'different' as he pretends, and has been terrible for the Labour Party and would be terrible for the country, and it is baffling to me that tribalistic voting plus those who do love his message could see him win more votes than Ed M, but I cannot discount the possibility, nor can I pretend that every single utterance he makes or how he presents them is laughable or terrible, but that in no way excuses what a bad leader of the opposition he is and would continue to be, and while I think the labour brand will see the party not get wiped out as much as some think, I do believe being severely reduced in the short term would be better for them, if it means Corbyn and his ilk will never again have influence on the party.
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still be a relative novice at the big time, and he's lost his cool occasionally, which only makes his fans love him more, but he is able to fight through difficulty better than some of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Ahahahahahaha!
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader. He has superficially attractive qualities, but he is proudly inflexible, he is incompetent, he is not as 'different' as he pretends, and has been terrible for the Labour Party and would be terrible for the country, and it is baffling to me that tribalistic voting plus those who do love his message could see him win more votes than Ed M, but I cannot discount the possibility, nor can I pretend that every single utterance he makes or how he presents them is laughable or terrible, but that in no way excuses what a bad leader of the opposition he is and would continue to be, and while I think the labour brand will see the party not get wiped out as much as some think, I do believe being severely reduced in the short term would be better for them, if it means Corbyn and his ilk will never again have influence on the party.
He rattled your cage .The left and Unions should always have influence on the Labour Party .Whatever you say.The argument as always is how much influence in a social reformist party.I think you are getting stockholme syndrome reading all the right of centre which dominate political betting.
@rcs1000 , I tried to do your http://survey.amoral.org thing but I stopped after four because I'm not sure I'm doing it right. I don'y know much about football to assess a quote as interesting or boring. Are you sure you want me to do it?
You've already announced [nationalisation policy] We have So tell me about it Discussed taking franchises into public owndership but Details will be set out in manifesto so not prepared to answer that.
Pretty silly. 'The leaks have suggested we'd do this, and I'll confirm we are looking at it, but be patient and wait for the details'
I'd never make it in politics. I'm plenty shameless, but I don't think I have the ability to say some of this stuff with a straight face.
If your long term plan is to be leader/PM then 2 things you should try to avoid are:
1) defends a mad policy. 2) be seen to actively criticise party policy at this close to a GE.
So I don't really blame her for the prevarication, I just think as a want to be leader she could/should have been better at avoiding the question.
Not seen the underlying data - but this might explain in part why SCON appear to be shifting tactics - next Ruth will be promising to keep funding the Bedroom Tax and maintain no Tuition fees !!
The funny thing about that remark from Nicolson is that I've been through the pdf of the Ashcroft survey from top to bottom, and can only find two questions about specific persons: best economic team (choice: May/Hammond vs Corbyn/McDonnell) and best PM (choice: May, Corbyn or Farron.) He might be right, and I might not be looking in the right place, but the Scottish leaders don't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the published data.
The answers to those questions are, incidentally, instructive. Broken down by VI, SNP voters were the only group other than Labour voters to back the Labour politicians in both of these cases. Even Plaid Cymru voters favoured the Tory politicians; and in the best PM question, Lib Dem voters ranked the three choices Farron 1st, May 2nd and Corbyn 3rd.
Horrors! you don't think Nicolson is lying, do you?
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
Not a car crash, a multi vehicle pile up in a pea souper on the M1.
Corbyn is much more experienced and weathered by decades of low key politics. He might still bme of his subordinates.
You make a valiant effort at trying to pretend that you are not one of his fans.
Ahahahahahaha!
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader.
He rattled your cage .The left and Unions should always have influence on the Labour Party .Whatever you say.The argument as always is how much influence in a social reformist party.I think you are getting stockholme syndrome reading all the right of centre which dominate political betting.
Well that's possible, but I think unlikely - Corbyn's biggest problems are not even his policies, or how much the left and the unions have influence on the Labour Party (neither of which I mentioned or objected to, which you seem to have missed - I did not say nor do I believe the unions should have no influence over the Labour Party, why did you assume that I would?). His biggest problems are he is entirely inflexible, which I think is hugely problematic in politics, simplistic, and he is just not up to the job.
I have no issue with the unions having big influence in Labour. It's Labour's party, they can permit that if they like, though they are not there to do nothing but the unions want of course. It's a bit worrisome you assumed that my dislike of Corbyn was due to his backing of or from the unions.
It's not them who should have no influence on Labour - it's incompetents who never shift their views over decades and see it as a positive who shouldn't. My cage wasn't rattled - I was stunned that acknowledging Corbyn can handle himself in a political interview or that he has qualities that people do like which make sense, meant someone thought I was a fan of his.
Edit - was my reference to 'his ilk' that made you think I object to union influence? I hope it was clear my intent was that I think those like him set in their ways, unwilling to change and incompetent were the ilk I meant. Whether Labour go left or right is of no real concern to me, I take my policy support in a pick and mix approach, and if there's stuff in his manifesto I like, I will have no problem saying so.
What's that Skippy, Murdo the unelectable is saying the Greens are a wholly owned subsidiary of the SNP because they're only standing in a quarter of the seats that they did in 2015?
*generic kangaroo noise*
And UKIP are only standing in a quarter of the seats that they did in 2015?
*generic kangaroo noise*
And people are saying UKIP are standing aside to help the SCons?
*generic kangaroo noise*
It's a strange one alright Skip. I'd have to assume these are two completely different situations.
I've not read the full article but surely this goes with the territory. If the deal involves dropping charges, then by definition there must have been charges to drop. .
I've not read the full article but surely this goes with the territory. If the deal involves dropping charges, then by definition there must have been charges to drop. .
I think the point was he told the American people they were in effect peripheral people being released, people with no terrorist charges against them. He rather glossed over that some of them were and are a significant risk in terms of being arms or component procurement specialists for high tech weaponary. Its the implication that the people released were errant boys, bag carriers and people of no consequence that might come to bite him in the arse.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
There must be a real chance of the SNP sneaking through the middle in East Ren, although I still fancy the Tories to take it given that they were twenty points ahead in the locals.
As a Scottish Lib Dem (recently relocated to London), the sight of those big Blair McDougall posters sticks in the craw a bit. If Better Together had been a well run campaign that had achieved the 60/40 split in favour of the union that should have been possible in 2014 then he would be entitled to brag about his role in the organisation.
IMO, the half arsed Labour leadership of Better Together ended up gifting the SNP a chunk of voters who were definitely persuadable, made the referendum tighter than it needed to be and caused a lot of the ensuing carnage for Lab and LDs in Scotland.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
There must be a real chance of the SNP sneaking through the middle in East Ren, although I still fancy the Tories to take it given that they were twenty points ahead in the locals.
As a Scottish Lib Dem (recently relocated to London), the sight of those big Blair McDougall posters sticks in the craw a bit. If Better Together had been a well run campaign that had achieved the 60/40 split in favour of the union that should have been possible in 2014 then he would be entitled to brag about his role in the organisation.
IMO, the half arsed Labour leadership of Better Together ended up gifting the SNP a chunk of voters who were definitely persuadable, made the referendum tighter than it needed to be and caused a lot of the ensuing carnage for Lab and LDs in Scotland.
When IndyRef started someone asked me what I thought success for the SNP was. I said getting Yes over 35% was the aim and if it got towards 40% then that was pretty huge for Scottish politics.
(Corbyn's) biggest problems are he is entirely inflexible, which I think is hugely problematic in politics, simplistic, and he is just not up to the job.
Jeremy Corbyn has changed his position on a number of issues. Notably he went from Remain to Leave just like Theresa May. Then there are nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and NATO, on each of which he has changed to, or towards, the positions held by the Tory party.
You must have a strange definition of "entirely inflexible".
I really fear for Corbyn when Andrew Neil finally gets to sink his teeth into him. After watching the hapless RLB this morning, dear oh dear, if she is this bad, imagine how Corbyn will suffer - a man with precisely zero intellectual capacity.
He rattled your cage .The left and Unions should always have influence on the Labour Party .Whatever you say.The argument as always is how much influence in a social reformist party.I think you are getting stockholme syndrome reading all the right of centre which dominate political betting.
Well that's possible, but I think unlikely - Corbyn's biggest problems are not even his policies, or how much the left and the unions have influence on the Labour Party (neither of which I mentioned or objected to, which you seem to have missed - I did not say nor do I believe the unions should have no influence over the Labour Party, why did you assume that I would?). His biggest problems are he is entirely inflexible, which I think is hugely problematic in politics, simplistic, and he is just not up to the job.
I have no issue with the unions having big influence in Labour. It's Labour's party, they can permit that if they like, though they are not there to do nothing but the unions want of course. It's a bit worrisome you assumed that my dislike of Corbyn was due to his backing of or from the unions.
It's not them who should have no influence on Labour - it's incompetents who never shift their views over decades and see it as a positive who shouldn't. My cage wasn't rattled - I was stunned that acknowledging Corbyn can handle himself in a political interview or that he has qualities that people do like which make sense, meant someone thought I was a fan of his.
I knew you were not a fan of his nor am I .However the impression you gave that nobody of his ilk should ever have the possibility to stand as leader again A broad church such as the Labour party under FPTP has to keep all stands of social reformism together to win elections.Blair. took them for granted thinking they had no where else to go.I believe in future a new young leader without the history and baggage can win without excepting liberal economics that have dominated since ,1979.
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
While I agree that soft Brexit is a mirage, I think that one could usefuly define Hard Brexit as being outside the customs union and soft being within the CU, including being within the Single Market.
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
You are absolutely right about the fact that the EU has been consistent in that aspect of their pronouncements. But then they go on to hold other negotiating positions that imply some preferential access to the Single market, because otherwise those positions make no sense.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
There must be a real chance of the SNP sneaking through the middle in East Ren, although I still fancy the Tories to take it given that they were twenty points ahead in the locals.
As a Scottish Lib Dem (recently relocated to London), the sight of those big Blair McDougall posters sticks in the craw a bit. If Better Together had been a well run campaign that had achieved the 60/40 split in favour of the union that should have been possible in 2014 then he would be entitled to brag about his role in the organisation.
IMO, the half arsed Labour leadership of Better Together ended up gifting the SNP a chunk of voters who were definitely persuadable, made the referendum tighter than it needed to be and caused a lot of the ensuing carnage for Lab and LDs in Scotland.
Not sure if the LDs did a great job of persuading their own voters (let alone any others) to vote for No.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
I'd be very confused who I was 'supposed' to vote for as a unionist if I was in that seat. Should be a good test of how much the unionist public is willing to tactically vote, and how well they do it in the face of confusion of who 'gets' to be the SNP challenger in a given seat.
There must be a real chance of the SNP sneaking through the middle in East Ren, although I still fancy the Tories to take it given that they were twenty points ahead in the locals.
As a Scottish Lib Dem (recently relocated to London), the sight of those big Blair McDougall posters sticks in the craw a bit. If Better Together had been a well run campaign that had achieved the 60/40 split in favour of the union that should have been possible in 2014 then he would be entitled to brag about his role in the organisation.
IMO, the half arsed Labour leadership of Better Together ended up gifting the SNP a chunk of voters who were definitely persuadable, made the referendum tighter than it needed to be and caused a lot of the ensuing carnage for Lab and LDs in Scotland.
Sorry if I'm showing ignorance but by 'Blare McDougall' do you mean Allister Darling?
And genuine Question what in particular do you think the better Together campaign could/should of done to win more over the persuadable voters that you talk about.
I've lived in Scotland in the past but not at the time of the referendum, so did not see the campaign up close and personal, but fro a distance it looked hard fought on both sides.
(Corbyn's) biggest problems are he is entirely inflexible, which I think is hugely problematic in politics, simplistic, and he is just not up to the job.
Jeremy Corbyn has changed his position on a number of issues. Notably he went from Remain to Leave just like Theresa May. Then there are nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and NATO, on each of which he has changed to, or towards, the positions held by the Tory party.
You must have a strange definition of "entirely inflexible".
Ok, not 'entirely', I trust you'll forgive the occasional over emphasis (though surely he went Leave-Remain with his EU views, not the other way around - as accepting the referendum result is not a change in view) . But he is 'too' inflexible, given part of his appeal to his base has been how consistently he has held positions for 40 years. I don't think that is a positive in changing times.
I knew you were not a fan of his nor am I .However the impression you gave that nobody of his ilk should ever have the possibility to stand as leader again
Yes, but as I say my intention was not to say no one of his broad views should have the possibility to stand for leader of the party, but that someone of his quality should notbe in a position to win and have influence. His 'ilk' are not all those who share his policy views (though there will be overlap) but those who are not suitable, in this day and age, to make the opposition competitive.
If the party wants a broad collection of views, fine (though frankly I think parties in general are too accommodating of very divergent views which make their supposed ideological coherence very suspect at times, and thus their criticism of opposing parties for their ideologies suspect as well), if they want to offer a full on socialist manifesto (which even now they are not), that's fine. I want the government held to account, I would prefer small majorities or no majorities as a preference, and people like Corbyn, while not entirely responsible for the situation, make that very unlikely to happen, because he's not good at the job.
I would be quite content to see what a well led Labour party offering the same ideas as Corbyn or even more radical ideas could do, if the message would chime with the public.
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
While I agree that soft Brexit is a mirage, I think that one could usefuly define Hard Brexit as being outside the customs union and soft being within the CU, including being within the Single Market.
If we take that as a working definition then, Doc, we are on route to a Hard Brexit (as stated by the PM and as agreed by you and I on here many months ago).
Quite what a diamond-hard Brexit is (a phrase used recently by some on here) I have no idea.
Comments
Except of course a band 5 nurse is paid £300 more in Scotland than in England under the Tories because the SNP have abided by the independent Pay Review unlike the coalition and then the Tory Government. In other words the SNP in Government have done what the leaked Labour manifesto promises to do.
It may be a reason that public satisfaction with the NHS is at 90 per cent in Scotland compared to 77 per cent in England.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt?CMP=TNLEmail_118918_1855717
Also I wouldn't spend too much time citing Cllr Arthur of Edinburgh. Yesterday he reckoned it to be a "privilege" listening to John Prescott in KirkcaldyJ! He probably should have been out canvassing in Edinburgh instead of making up numbers for a Labour TV audience in Fife.
Someone said that Gordon Brown makes a "single transferable speech" these days. In fact the real point is that he makes them in front of a "single transferable audience" - such is Labour's critical weakness on the ground.
The current YouGov does look like an outlier, but only time will tell. If Ukip's final opinion poll VI is somewhere like 5%, then their actual vote share will probably be more like 2%-3%; they've withdrawn in about half of all constituencies, and are standing down in places where they have racked up large votes in 2015 as well as in those areas where they were hopeless.
Meanwhile, the first attempt to work out what the Ukip die-hards will do when they find their party isn't on the ballot paper suggests that this is likely to confer little or no net additional advantage on the Conservatives:
"Regardless of dropout, the swings from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives were much bigger where UKIP did well last time. The stronger the UKIP starting point the more former UKIP voters there were to switch to the Conservatives.
The swings were a bit bigger when UKIP dropped out. But not that much.
...
The reason UKIP dropout had such a small effect on the swings to the Conservatives is that it benefitted all three of the other main parties, it just helped the Conservatives a bit more.
This does not necessarily mean that when UKIP drop out all the other parties get some of their voters. Without any UKIP candidate to support, former UKIP voters may just have abstained, leading to an increase in vote share for all the other candidates. But if that were the case then UKIP dropout should have been associated with lower turnout. If anything, after controlling for the tendency for turnout to increase less where UKIP did best in 2013, the opposite is true.
With so many former UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, it is worthwhile thinking about what kind of UKIP supporter still wants to stick with UKIP. They are likely to be predominantly the ones that are not particularly keen on the Conservatives.
...
In the general election, UKIP dropout is likely to help the Conservatives a little in those seats where UKIP did well last time, but in most places the dropout effect may well be negligible."
https://electionsetc.com/2017/05/13/ukip-dropout-did-not-help-the-conservatives-much-in-the-local-elections/#more-2314
The important thing for the Conservatives is that this analysis is evidence against one possible theory of what would happen if the Ukip option were removed from the ballot paper - that being, that the remaining portion of committed Ukip voters were strong anti-Tories, and would defect back to Labour in disproportionate numbers were their preferred party no longer to be available. It seems that the withdrawal of Ukip in Con-Lab marginals should, on average, confer little additional benefit on the Conservatives, but none at all on Labour.
I wonder how many normal folk in the UK support the IRA, hamas, Hezbollah...
https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/863536414163599360
Re the Fallon ambush, if it was an all party trip - who were the Labour MPs with him? Might be handy to know for their rebuttal?
And NPXMP either has a terrible memory or is less than scrupulously honest. With himself, of course.
Probably a typo for range. A normal icbm (with vastly greater range than the Norks) reaches a little over half that.
2000km range would be nothing new, they're already thought to have greater than that.
Question is, what proportion of the voting public are going to either know or care about this come polling day? Over to you, Sir Lynton...
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/863706050666663936
https://twitter.com/mgoldenmsp/status/863658769158479872
Corbyn and john the Marxist openly support terrorists and employ extremists, antisemites and holocaust deniers....
You've already announced [nationalisation policy]
We have
So tell me about it
Discussed taking franchises into public owndership but Details will be set out in manifesto so not prepared to answer that.
Pretty silly. 'The leaks have suggested we'd do this, and I'll confirm we are looking at it, but be patient and wait for the details'
I'd never make it in politics. I'm plenty shameless, but I don't think I have the ability to say some of this stuff with a straight face.
I make Labour well in play on the seat. 25-1 with Skybet is mispriced.
This is one seat Labour DO want a Tory surge in.
2) The time on a tweet is not necessarily accurate. See http://www.networkworld.com/article/3126465/internet/was-trump-bitten-by-twitter-time-stamp-bug-that-stung-alec-baldwin-s-wife.html
Tories 16720.86
Lab 19329.56
Lib Dem 14243.69
UKIP 822.25
On the Yougov transitions.
I think Clegg's chances are somewhat better than that but Labour are surely over 4%.
4-1 is too short for the blues as of now./
The answers to those questions are, incidentally, instructive. Broken down by VI, SNP voters were the only group other than Labour voters to back the Labour politicians in both of these cases. Even Plaid Cymru voters favoured the Tory politicians; and in the best PM question, Lib Dem voters ranked the three choices Farron 1st, May 2nd and Corbyn 3rd.
https://twitter.com/PM4EastRen/status/863718297929474051
Too much an effort to seek a middle ground where there isn't one is much more likely. As you like, ahem,
I will not even consider voting for any Labour Party candidate at any level of government or position, so long as Jeremy Corbyn is their leader. He has superficially attractive qualities, but he is proudly inflexible, he is incompetent, he is not as 'different' as he pretends, and has been terrible for the Labour Party and would be terrible for the country, and it is baffling to me that tribalistic voting plus those who do love his message could see him win more votes than Ed M, but I cannot discount the possibility, nor can I pretend that every single utterance he makes or how he presents them is laughable or terrible, but that in no way excuses what a bad leader of the opposition he is and would continue to be, and while I think the labour brand will see the party not get wiped out as much as some think, I do believe being severely reduced in the short term would be better for them, if it means Corbyn and his ilk will never again have influence on the party.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Farron will lose or anywhere close. The also-ran vote shares are modest in W&L - the Tories would need a large amount of transfers directly from the Lib Dems to take it, and both national polling and the council results in the area suggest that this is highly improbable.
On a scale from 0 to 100, how do you rate the performance of the following politicians, where zero means ‘terrible’ and 100 means 'excellent'?
Scotland numbers
Sturgeon 52.91
Davidson 40.52
May 39.79
Euro?
Schengen?
Ummm......
https://twitter.com/politico/status/863725625600872448
1) defends a mad policy.
2) be seen to actively criticise party policy at this close to a GE.
So I don't really blame her for the prevarication, I just think as a want to be leader she could/should have been better at avoiding the question.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/862604849359335424
I have no issue with the unions having big influence in Labour. It's Labour's party, they can permit that if they like, though they are not there to do nothing but the unions want of course. It's a bit worrisome you assumed that my dislike of Corbyn was due to his backing of or from the unions.
It's not them who should have no influence on Labour - it's incompetents who never shift their views over decades and see it as a positive who shouldn't. My cage wasn't rattled - I was stunned that acknowledging Corbyn can handle himself in a political interview or that he has qualities that people do like which make sense, meant someone thought I was a fan of his.
Edit - was my reference to 'his ilk' that made you think I object to union influence? I hope it was clear my intent was that I think those like him set in their ways, unwilling to change and incompetent were the ilk I meant. Whether Labour go left or right is of no real concern to me, I take my policy support in a pick and mix approach, and if there's stuff in his manifesto I like, I will have no problem saying so.
What's that Skippy, Murdo the unelectable is saying the Greens are a wholly owned subsidiary of the SNP because they're only standing in a quarter of the seats that they did in 2015?
*generic kangaroo noise*
And UKIP are only standing in a quarter of the seats that they did in 2015?
*generic kangaroo noise*
And people are saying UKIP are standing aside to help the SCons?
*generic kangaroo noise*
It's a strange one alright Skip. I'd have to assume these are two completely different situations.
"what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
As a Scottish Lib Dem (recently relocated to London), the sight of those big Blair McDougall posters sticks in the craw a bit. If Better Together had been a well run campaign that had achieved the 60/40 split in favour of the union that should have been possible in 2014 then he would be entitled to brag about his role in the organisation.
IMO, the half arsed Labour leadership of Better Together ended up gifting the SNP a chunk of voters who were definitely persuadable, made the referendum tighter than it needed to be and caused a lot of the ensuing carnage for Lab and LDs in Scotland.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
You must have a strange definition of "entirely inflexible".
It should be used and will be used as a stick to beat him over the head with.
Trumpton.
If you are to believe the rumours, a lot of stuff is going to go down in the next week or two. And thats only the thin end of the wedge.
http://tinyurl.com/homnkgh
And genuine Question what in particular do you think the better Together campaign could/should of done to win more over the persuadable voters that you talk about.
I've lived in Scotland in the past but not at the time of the referendum, so did not see the campaign up close and personal, but fro a distance it looked hard fought on both sides.
For a start SIS role in agent running within the Provos was peripheral. Go check your names for the security services. Might help you.
If the party wants a broad collection of views, fine (though frankly I think parties in general are too accommodating of very divergent views which make their supposed ideological coherence very suspect at times, and thus their criticism of opposing parties for their ideologies suspect as well), if they want to offer a full on socialist manifesto (which even now they are not), that's fine. I want the government held to account, I would prefer small majorities or no majorities as a preference, and people like Corbyn, while not entirely responsible for the situation, make that very unlikely to happen, because he's not good at the job.
I would be quite content to see what a well led Labour party offering the same ideas as Corbyn or even more radical ideas could do, if the message would chime with the public.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/863725732169736192
Quite what a diamond-hard Brexit is (a phrase used recently by some on here) I have no idea.