politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Tories, Labour and the LDs should ensure that their ne

SystemSystem Posts: 12,260
edited July 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Tories, Labour and the LDs should ensure that their next leaders are Scottish

I’ve published the above chart before – the experience of LAB at GE2010 which totally knocked on the head the notion of uniform national swing.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    That assumption only works if the voters in England don't change their views at all.

    Neither the "[Scottish] bastard" nor the "Welsh windbag" helped Labour in English marginals?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,919
    edited July 2017
    'it is conceivable that a way could be found for the Tories to elect Davidson as national leader'

    Ruth Davidson telling pensioners in England and Wales that they should lose their WFA while Scottish millionaires keep it would be an interesting sight.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    Much may depend on whether the next major election in Scotland is a Holyrood election or a British General election.

    If it is the former, the SNP plus Greens are very likely to again have a joint overall majority. Dugdale is useless and Davidson has already peaked in Scotland.

    A second independence referendum cannot be resisted forever, and not in the face of a 2021 pro independence majority at Holyrood.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JPJ2 said:

    A second independence referendum cannot be resisted forever

    No, only for a generation.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    ThreeQuidder

    Naïve does not even cover that comment :-)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    edited July 2017
    FPT:
    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If you can be racist against religions and ideas it seems you can be racist against anything these says - even the English!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    Rephrase the question with "Pakistani" in place of "English." That should answer it.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    I think Mike's wrong,Emily Thornberry could be the next Labour leader which is why I posted 28-1 with Bet 365 at the time.It's not hard to see a suitable Lab figure.She is one sassy lady with a splendid tongue that slices opponents into little bits.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    Rephrase the question with "Pakistani" in place of "English." That should answer it.
    No it doesn't.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    brendan16 said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If you can be racist against religions and ideas it seems you can be racist against anything these says - even the English!
    That's what the law says. If you choose to interpret something as racist then it "is".
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    http://gcaptain.com/china-says-done-taking-garbage/ - I wonder what this going to do for recycling - if no one has a use for it.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'Muslims'. Aren't we simply a religion?
    :innocent:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    I'm 'only' 41:

    Ilford North unless specified:

    1997 Labour
    2001 LibDem
    2005 LibDem - Cambridge
    2010 Tory
    2015 Labour
    2017 Tory
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Golf history about to be made?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JPJ2 said:

    ThreeQuidder

    Naïve does not even cover that comment :-)

    It's naive to expect that the SNP might be held to their promise? Well, perhaps. But they certainly should be.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If it's possible to be "racist" about a religion then it's certainly possible to be "racist" about a nationality.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    ThreeQuidder said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If it's possible to be "racist" about a religion then it's certainly possible to be "racist" about a nationality.
    I think you are mixing up being discriminatory with being racist?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    IanB2 said:

    ThreeQuidder said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If it's possible to be "racist" about a religion then it's certainly possible to be "racist" about a nationality.
    I think you are mixing up being discriminatory with being racist?
    I'm not. I don't believe it's possible to be "racist" about either. But I am not part of the Thought Police.

    https://twitter.com/RomanCabanac/status/888088823296651264
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    Rephrase the question with "Pakistani" in place of "English." That should answer it.
    What about trying the same test using 'American' or 'Channel Islanders' or 'Russians' or 'Lebanese'.....Some work better than others. Some like 'English' if you are from Europe hardly works at all.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited July 2017
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Golf history about to be made?

    YUP!!! 62 .............. magnificent.

    First time in 442 Majors.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    ThreeQuidder said:

    IanB2 said:

    ThreeQuidder said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If it's possible to be "racist" about a religion then it's certainly possible to be "racist" about a nationality.
    I think you are mixing up being discriminatory with being racist?
    I'm not. I don't believe it's possible to be "racist" about either. But I am not part of the Thought Police.

    Thankfully :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    GeoffM said:

    brendan16 said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'English'. Aren't we simply a nationality?
    If you can be racist against religions and ideas it seems you can be racist against anything these says - even the English!
    That's what the law says. If you choose to interpret something as racist then it "is".
    What about French Poodles or German Shepherds?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited July 2017
    volcanopete said:

    I think Mike's wrong,Emily Thornberry could be the next Labour leader which is why I posted 28-1 with Bet 365 at the time.It's not hard to see a suitable Lab figure.She is one sassy lady with a splendid tongue that slices opponents into little bits.

    She's condescension personified. (Well to me!)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    edited July 2017
    welshowl said:

    volcanopete said:

    I think Mike's wrong,Emily Thornberry could be the next Labour leader which is why I posted 28-1 with Bet 365 at the time.It's not hard to see a suitable Lab figure.She is one sassy lady with a splendid tongue that slices opponents into little bits.

    She's condescension personified. (Well to me!)
    I agree she is awful, and comes across badly. But she is professional and competent, which singles her out in the shadow cabinet, and I know others think she comes across well. Yet another of the marmite persuasion.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    When will the SNP choose an English leader? :lol:
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 193
    Corbyn will want Angela Rayner to succeed him and if she moderates her accent then the middle class left wing nobs that Thornberry represents will probably accept her as leader.
    The Lib Dems should try to headhunt Jess Phillips from Labour by offering her their leadership.Jess has bags of emotional intelligence and is very likeable
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'Muslims'. Aren't we simply a religion?
    :innocent:
    I'd don't mind the stream of non sequiturs in your own posts but it's a bit much manipulating mine so that I sound as batty as you.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    Roger said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Roger said:

    David_Evershed said:

    Just shows the Scottish to be racist - against the English.

    Who knew?

    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'Muslims'. Aren't we simply a religion?
    :innocent:
    I'd don't mind the stream of non sequiturs in your own posts but it's a bit much manipulating mine so that I sound as batty as you.
    Is it possible to be 'racist' against the 'Muslims'. Aren't they simply a religion?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,523
    Metatron said:

    Corbyn will want Angela Rayner to succeed him and if she moderates her accent then the middle class left wing nobs that Thornberry represents will probably accept her as leader.
    The Lib Dems should try to headhunt Jess Phillips from Labour by offering her their leadership.Jess has bags of emotional intelligence and is very likeable

    I thought Rebecca Long-Bailey was the chosen one? Or was that last week?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    volcanopete said:

    I think Mike's wrong,Emily Thornberry could be the next Labour leader which is why I posted 28-1 with Bet 365 at the time.It's not hard to see a suitable Lab figure.She is one sassy lady with a splendid tongue that slices opponents into little bits.

    Admit you fancy her.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    Michael Gove for PM? He's Scottishish.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,523
    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    Recidivist said:

    volcanopete said:

    I think Mike's wrong,Emily Thornberry could be the next Labour leader which is why I posted 28-1 with Bet 365 at the time.It's not hard to see a suitable Lab figure.She is one sassy lady with a splendid tongue that slices opponents into little bits.

    Admit you fancy her.
    Splendid tongue? Ooo-er missus!!!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    1964 Labour
    1966 Liberal
    1970 Liberal
    1974 (f) Liberal
    1974 (o) Liberal
    1979 Liberal
    1983 Social Democrat
    1987 Social Democrat
    1992 LibDem
    1997 Labour
    2001 Labour
    2005 Labour
    2010 LibDem
    2015 LibDem
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    Looks like Chris Froome is going to win the Tour de France!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    OldKingCole said:

    Looks like Chris Froome is going to win the Tour de France!

    you could tell by the booing in the french crowd
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Metatron said:

    Corbyn will want Angela Rayner to succeed him and if she moderates her accent then the middle class left wing nobs that Thornberry represents will probably accept her as leader.
    The Lib Dems should try to headhunt Jess Phillips from Labour by offering her their leadership.Jess has bags of emotional intelligence and is very likeable

    'moderates her accent'

    she needs a brain cell or two before that. how such an ungulate is even an MP is beyond me. can't even close her mouth after sentences.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I'm sure there are a few. But the post-election polls don't suggest much buyer's regret, unless it's being outweighed by new voters. I do think that John Rentoul should listen to Tony Blair, who freely admits that Corbyn is more popular than he expected, and merely says that it'd be easier to win from the centre - not necessarily right (as you say I think Corbyn is genuinely on to something), but more plausible than a theory based on a sample of 1.

    By the same token, the polls don't suggest a huge further momentum behind the Labour surge at this point. Most voters feel they've dealt with choosing parties for the moment, and await further developments before they give it much further thought.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Is it more than the number of people who voted third party or DNV because labour couldn't win?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I am sure it happens. But on the other hand there are also people who think their choice has no hope are disheartened. I did vote last time, but as the polling booth was on my walk to work it required little extra effort. Had it not been for that I would probably have not bothered. As to whether the group who voted Labour because they thought they wouldn't win outnumbers the group who didn't vote Labour for the same reason, who is to know?
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 183
    Always the best sort of evidence a tweet . just behind a bloke in the pub said
    William_H said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Is it more than the number of people who voted third party or DNV because labour couldn't win?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,523
    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    Why would a lifelong Labour voter have gone for Hague in 2001 under the safe knowledge that he wouldn't be PM?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Recidivist said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I am sure it happens. But on the other hand there are also people who think their choice has no hope are disheartened. I did vote last time, but as the polling booth was on my walk to work it required little extra effort. Had it not been for that I would probably have not bothered. As to whether the group who voted Labour because they thought they wouldn't win outnumbers the group who didn't vote Labour for the same reason, who is to know?
    Indeed. Nobody can see in to the mind of a voter to know what motivates that individual.

    Except Leavers. All of us voted for something written on the side of a bus.

    That's different, of course.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    Recidivist said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I am sure it happens. But on the other hand there are also people who think their choice has no hope are disheartened. I did vote last time, but as the polling booth was on my walk to work it required little extra effort. Had it not been for that I would probably have not bothered. As to whether the group who voted Labour because they thought they wouldn't win outnumbers the group who didn't vote Labour for the same reason, who is to know?
    2017 created a perfect storm which acted to the detriment of the Conservatives. The dynamics will change next time (they always do), but who knows where that will lead.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Surely its far less important for Labour to win seats in Scotland, most of which are already held by an opposition party likely to support a Labour government than for it to win seats from the Tories in England, -something which Labour failed in sufficient numbers to do in 2017, and why it lost the election?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,523
    NickPalmer said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I'm sure there are a few. But the post-election polls don't suggest much buyer's regret, unless it's being outweighed by new voters. I do think that John Rentoul should listen to Tony Blair, who freely admits that Corbyn is more popular than he expected, and merely says that it'd be easier to win from the centre - not necessarily right (as you say I think Corbyn is genuinely on to something), but more plausible than a theory based on a sample of 1.

    By the same token, the polls don't suggest a huge further momentum behind the Labour surge at this point. Most voters feel they've dealt with choosing parties for the moment, and await further developments before they give it much further thought.
    Labour is currently making a massive mistake imho, of assuming that Corbyn will just need one more heave.

    The next GE will not be anything like 2017.

    No one in the Tory party is going to allow another dire campaign like the 2017 one. And they'll be blasting back on uncosted manifesto stuff and economics, not running the 'Empress May' coronation campaign.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    No, we should adopt a voting system that makes it unnecessary.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    JPJ2 said:

    Much may depend on whether the next major election in Scotland is a Holyrood election or a British General election.

    If it is the former, the SNP plus Greens are very likely to again have a joint overall majority. Dugdale is useless and Davidson has already peaked in Scotland.

    A second independence referendum cannot be resisted forever, and not in the face of a 2021 pro independence majority at Holyrood.

    An interesting post which elevates wishful thoughts to a new level.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    GeoffM said:

    Recidivist said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I am sure it happens. But on the other hand there are also people who think their choice has no hope are disheartened. I did vote last time, but as the polling booth was on my walk to work it required little extra effort. Had it not been for that I would probably have not bothered. As to whether the group who voted Labour because they thought they wouldn't win outnumbers the group who didn't vote Labour for the same reason, who is to know?
    Indeed. Nobody can see in to the mind of a voter to know what motivates that individual.

    Except Leavers. All of us voted for something written on the side of a bus.

    That's different, of course.
    and because were thickos

    though obviously not as thick as people who cant communicate by bus-mail

    they lost to the thickos
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    not_on_fire said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    No, we should adopt a voting system that makes it unnecessary.
    We already have one.

    Vote swapping should be illegal.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Alanbrooke said:

    GeoffM said:

    Recidivist said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    rottenborough said:

    More evidence, on the back of a Rentoul article, of what I have been saying about some Labour votes were from people who thought it was safe as Corbyn couldn't win. I know this happened from my own extended family.

    https://twitter.com/thatAdamGray/status/888770222903218176

    Sounds completely fanciful to me. Why, for example, didn't Hague experience a similar phenomenon in 2001? The Blarites are scrabbling around for any explanation for Jezza's success other than the obvious one: that he's actually quite good and on to something.
    I am sure it happens. But on the other hand there are also people who think their choice has no hope are disheartened. I did vote last time, but as the polling booth was on my walk to work it required little extra effort. Had it not been for that I would probably have not bothered. As to whether the group who voted Labour because they thought they wouldn't win outnumbers the group who didn't vote Labour for the same reason, who is to know?
    Indeed. Nobody can see in to the mind of a voter to know what motivates that individual.

    Except Leavers. All of us voted for something written on the side of a bus.

    That's different, of course.
    and because were thickos

    though obviously not as thick as people who cant communicate by bus-mail

    they lost to the thickos
    And, as our American allies say, they're still feeling the butt-hurt.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    GeoffM said:

    not_on_fire said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    No, we should adopt a voting system that makes it unnecessary.
    We already have one.

    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    That sounds like nanny state interference in our right to vote how we choose.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    Given that Lab performed even worse in 2010 in England than other areas, perhaps the reverse also applies - a Scottish leader repels English voters? Blair always tried to hide any trace of Scottish roots. Brown's portrayal was always as a dour scot (not that it was inaccurate).

    Perhaps a stronger performance in Scotland is cancelled out by a weaker performance elsewhere.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a waste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    Why would I make it up? Don't you think I've got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than tell pointless lies about my voting history on a political betting forum?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Paristonda said:

    GeoffM said:

    not_on_fire said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    No, we should adopt a voting system that makes it unnecessary.
    We already have one.

    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    That sounds like nanny state interference in our right to vote how we choose.
    Exactly the opposite. We define the way that we wish to vote (see the referendum rejecting PR in 2011) and the State is instructed to implement our decision. We also instruct the State to stop cheating by the corrupt left. But I repeat myself there, of course.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    ThreeQuidder

    There was no promise that there would not be another independence referendum for a generation.

    If anything there was a threat that if the Scots did note vote Yes then they might not get another chance for a generation-which is something very different indeed.

    Now if it had been written into the Edinburgh Agreement-which it was not-then you might have a case for your postion.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    edited July 2017
    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why? If I’m sure my ‘most favoured’ candidate can’t win in my consituency and someone else is in a similar position in another, and we both dislike the same party, why shouldn’t we agree on some sort of strategy.
    Even the Daily Heil recommended it, or something like it, in 2017.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,882
    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why?
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    GeoffM said:

    not_on_fire said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    No, we should adopt a voting system that makes it unnecessary.
    We already have one.

    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Political parties are just a formalised mechanism for vote swapping. But worse, because they serve to limit voters choices.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    felix

    I assume you are suggesting that it is implausible that the SNP and Greens together will have more seats that all the other parties combined yet again in 2021 just as they did in 2011 (SNP on their own did then) and 2016.

    In that case you need inter alia to explain why the SNP with only 6 Westminster seats in 2010 GE went on to have an overall majority in 2011 at Holyrood just 1 year later.

    As I said, Dugdale remain useless, but ironically locked in place although SLAB gains at GE 2017 were down to Corbyn not her. and Davidson's popularity is less than Sturgeon's although the MSM likes to pretend otherwise by comparing dissimilar questions.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 758
    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why?
    How?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2017
    JPJ2 said:

    felix

    I assume you are suggesting that it is implausible that the SNP and Greens together will have more seats that all the other parties combined yet again in 2021 just as they did in 2011 (SNP on their own did then) and 2016.

    In that case you need inter alia to explain why the SNP with only 6 Westminster seats in 2010 GE went on to have an overall majority in 2011 at Holyrood just 1 year later.

    As I said, Dugdale remain useless, but ironically locked in place although SLAB gains at GE 2017 were down to Corbyn not her. and Davidson's popularity is less than Sturgeon's although the MSM likes to pretend otherwise by comparing dissimilar questions.

    I think there's a decent chance of Labour having the most Scottish seats at the next Westminster election, but don't see it happening in the Scottish Parliament election.

    SP elections really do seem to be total presidential contests these days, and Dugdale isn't beating Sturgeon or Davidson in one of those. She makes Ed Miliband look like he's overflowing with gravitas, God love her.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited July 2017
    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited July 2017
    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    We like suffering don't you know.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    Toms said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    We like suffering don't you know.
    Yes, the author also picked up on the Leave masochism strategy, which is being employed with ever greater frequency.

    The responses have taken the now familiar route from denial (it won’t happen), via minimisation (if it does happen, it won’t be that bad), to steeliness in the face of self-harm (it will happen and it will be painful, but it will be worth it).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Uncle Vince wants a whole load of wealth taxes....

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/22/vince-cable-wealth-taxes-win-back-labour-voters
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Mr. Urquhart, last time he waved his nuclear missile around, now he wants to carpet the country with tax bombshells? :p
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited July 2017
    Toms said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    We like suffering don't you know.
    To day's Guardian doesn't make good reading today unless you're a right wing believer. Who knew except the Christian Right Mike Pence Nigel Farage UKIP Fox News and 183,000 headbangers that the medical experts didn't have the faintest......

    Get out of bed and walk Charlie Gard......

    https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hadleyfreeman

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
    Apart from the City of London's PR department who have been spewing nonsensical press releases since the vote I can't find evidence of your story anywhere

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    edited July 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why?
    In a general election you are meant to vote for one of competing representatives in your locale.

    Not sure it should be illegal - but it is in my opinion pretty disreputable.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited July 2017
    Roger said:

    Toms said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    We like suffering don't you know.
    To day's Guardian doesn't make good reading today unless you're a right wing believer. Who knew except the Christian Right Mike Pence Nigel Farage UKIP Fox News and 183,000 headbangers that the medical experts didn't have the faintest......

    Get out of bed and walk Charlie Gard......

    https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hadleyfreeman

    Yes. Speaking of Mike Pence, were Trump to be impeached it would be jumping from a cesspit into a midden.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited July 2017
    Roger said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
    Apart from the City of London's PR department who have been spewing nonsensical press releases since the vote I can't find evidence of your story anywhere

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
    City am good enough source?

    http://www.cityam.com/268762/confidence-city-high-job-volumes-rise-nearly-fifth-after
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,357
    A fun game for all the family.

    https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/888772638985859072

    Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
    Apart from the City of London's PR department who have been spewing nonsensical press releases since the vote I can't find evidence of your story anywhere

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
    City am good enough source?

    http://www.cityam.com/268762/confidence-city-high-job-volumes-rise-nearly-fifth-after
    Compared to June 2016 when they were depressed due to the referendum.

    You'll enjoy this. http://www.londonandpartners.com/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited July 2017
    Roger said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
    Apart from the City of London's PR department who have been spewing nonsensical press releases since the vote I can't find evidence of your story anywhere

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
    City am good enough source?

    http://www.cityam.com/268762/confidence-city-high-job-volumes-rise-nearly-fifth-after
    Compared to June 2016 when they were depressed due to the referendum.

    You'll enjoy this. http://www.londonandpartners.com/
    So you admit I was right. Good we can more on. Stick to talking about tampon ads.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    Except there are now more city jobs than before the brexit vote...
    Apart from the City of London's PR department who have been spewing nonsensical press releases since the vote I can't find evidence of your story anywhere

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-london-city-jobs-losses-lse-boss-warning-uk-eu-a7519396.html
    City am good enough source?

    http://www.cityam.com/268762/confidence-city-high-job-volumes-rise-nearly-fifth-after
    Bizarrely it's preparing for Brexit which is currently the most buoyant segment of the financial services industry, which is alluded in the City Am article:

    “Regulatory pressure continues to be a key factor in driving recruitment, but we are also seeing more projects focused roles appearing across finance and operations functions, suggesting that employers are not being driven solely by a need to ensure regulatory compliance."
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,718
    JPJ2 said:

    ThreeQuidder

    Naïve does not even cover that comment :-)

    He is not the full shilling never mind 3 quid
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,882
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why?
    In a general election you are meant to vote for one of competing representatives in your locale.

    Not sure it should be illegal - but it is in my opinion pretty disreputable.
    So, like adultery then?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fun game for all the family.

    https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/888772638985859072

    Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.

    I think Tessa's would probably be 2020... she'll be able to forget about all this shite by then.
  • aschamberlainaschamberlain Posts: 69
    Danny565 said:

    JPJ2 said:

    felix

    I assume you are suggesting that it is implausible that the SNP and Greens together will have more seats that all the other parties combined yet again in 2021 just as they did in 2011 (SNP on their own did then) and 2016.

    In that case you need inter alia to explain why the SNP with only 6 Westminster seats in 2010 GE went on to have an overall majority in 2011 at Holyrood just 1 year later.

    As I said, Dugdale remain useless, but ironically locked in place although SLAB gains at GE 2017 were down to Corbyn not her. and Davidson's popularity is less than Sturgeon's although the MSM likes to pretend otherwise by comparing dissimilar questions.

    I think there's a decent chance of Labour having the most Scottish seats at the next Westminster election, but don't see it happening in the Scottish Parliament election.

    SP elections really do seem to be total presidential contests these days, and Dugdale isn't beating Sturgeon or Davidson in one of those. She makes Ed Miliband look like he's overflowing with gravitas, God love her.
    I quite like Kezia Dugdale, although she's possibly not quite punchy enough to go head to head with Sturgeon and Davidson. If Jim Murphy had taken over Scottish Labour after the 2015 wipe out rather than before then he'd probably be set fair to replace Sturgeon as First Minister in 2021.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Uncle Vince wants a whole load of wealth taxes....

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/22/vince-cable-wealth-taxes-win-back-labour-voters

    Good man! - gets my vote!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    Benpointer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fun game for all the family.

    https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/888772638985859072

    Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.

    I think Tessa's would probably be 2020... she'll be able to forget about all this shite by then.
    Europhiles would go for the signing of the Treaty of Rome - 1957 :lol:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    edited July 2017
    Benpointer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Uncle Vince wants a whole load of wealth taxes....

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/22/vince-cable-wealth-taxes-win-back-labour-voters

    Good man! - gets my vote!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Benpointer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fun game for all the family.

    https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/888772638985859072

    Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.

    I think Tessa's would probably be 2020... she'll be able to forget about all this shite by then.
    Europhiles would go for the signing of the Treaty of Rome - 1957 :lol:
    Nope, 2025, when we re-join the EU! :smiley:
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    edited July 2017
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    OldKingCole said:

    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:


    Benpointer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The truth is that as people get older they get more right-wing.

    Anyone who thinks today's young voters will still have the same views in 30-40 years is mad.

    This is the reason why the Tories and Labour will never "die". There will always be enough young voters to vote Labour. There will always be enough older voters to vote Conservative.

    It's possible the Parties will split and be called something else but the essential fight between the forces of progressive politics and the forces of conservative politics is eternal.

    That reflects conventional wisdom GIN. I guess the question is are people going to move rightwards fast enough for the Tories, or will they have to move further left?

    A question: (and I'm assuming you're over 45) were you a Labour supporter when young?

    I'm 39. ;)

    I did actually vote Labour in my first election but I wouldn't say I particularly "supported" Labour in 1997. I'm actually a classic "floater" with my voting intention as follows:


    1997 - Labour

    2001 - Didn't Vote (The "danger signs" were already flashing Re. Blair while the Tories were a aste of time)

    2005 - Lib-Dem (Iraq)

    2010 - Conservative (Get Brown Out)

    2015 - Conservative

    2017 - Conservative

    2022 - ???????????
    You are a Tory. Stop pretending.
    I’m 79.

    1959 Labour
    [snip left country-destroying unpatriotic walk of shame]
    2017 Labour (vote swap)

    'Vote swap' means I went on one of the sites advertising themselves as arrnaging such things and voted Labour, while a Labour supporter somewhere else votes LD. Much good did he do us, though!
    Vote swapping should be illegal.
    Why?
    In a general election you are meant to vote for one of competing representatives in your locale.

    Not sure it should be illegal - but it is in my opinion pretty disreputable.
    I know what we WERE supposed to be doing, but the situation, like much else in the British Consitution has evolved way past that. We vote for a representative for our locale, BUT we know that he or she will support on of several competing ‘tribes’.
    So, we make a choice between tribes.
    I’m not keen on doing it, but in my neck of the woods, a donkey with a blue rosette would get elected ahead of Einstein with any other colour.
    So if i can help to shift the balance a little way here and somewhere else......
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Benpointer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fun game for all the family.

    https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/888772638985859072

    Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.

    I think Tessa's would probably be 2020... she'll be able to forget about all this shite by then.
    Europhiles would go for the signing of the Treaty of Rome - 1957 :lol:
    2000; just before Blair got tied up with that idiot Bush!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    Roger said:

    The Brexit banking exodus gathers pace. I reckon even if we abandon Brexit now we'll be too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

    The poor bankers. Will no one think of their suffering?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    JPJ2 said:

    There was no promise that there would not be another independence referendum for a generation.

    Scottish Government White paper

    Page 3

    If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

    Page 10

    a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.

    Page 576

    It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,846
    edited July 2017
    Scott_P said:

    JPJ2 said:

    There was no promise that there would not be another independence referendum for a generation.

    Scottish Government White paper

    Page 3

    If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

    Page 10

    a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.

    Page 576

    It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity

    The British Isles should be made up of three EU member states: Ireland, Scotland and England. (And England should be a federation based on the historic kingdoms.)

    Let's look forwards to 1707.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,885
    williamglenn said:

    Scott_P said:

    JPJ2 said:

    There was no promise that there would not be another independence referendum for a generation.

    Scottish Government White paper

    Page 3

    If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

    Page 10

    a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.

    Page 576

    It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity

    The British Isles should be made up of three EU member states: Ireland, Scotland and England. (And England should be a federation based on the historic kingdoms.)

    Let's look forwards to 1707.
    No, back to 1400 and a counter-fsactual success of Owain Glyndŵr.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,380
    edited July 2017
    williamglenn said:

    Scott_P said:

    JPJ2 said:

    There was no promise that there would not be another independence referendum for a generation.

    Scottish Government White paper

    Page 3

    If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

    Page 10

    a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.

    Page 576

    It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity

    The British Isles should be made up of three EU member states: Ireland, Scotland and England. (And England should be a federation based on the historic kingdoms.)

    Let's look forwards to 1707.
    You forgot Wales and NI! I've got Wales and NI down separately in my Commonwealth Union:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

This discussion has been closed.