politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Double blow for SNP in new YouGov Scotland poll: support for independence down & more MP losses projected
New Times YouGov Scotland poll suggests SNP could be DOWN 8 to 27 Westminster seats at next GE. At GE2015 Sturgeon's party won 56 of Scotland's 59 seats https://t.co/GbyYxsinuN pic.twitter.com/PDC394lsdl
On topic, those Green and UKIP VI shares in the Westminster section might be an irrelevant as I can see neither of them putting up a full slate next time.
The one upside of Mrs May's unfortunate GE.....she may have (inadvertently) helped save the Union.
Loved the SNP Paper on 'the disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the EU Single Market' - curiously silent on the four times more important 'disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the UK Single Market'....
The one upside of Mrs May's unfortunate GE.....she may have (inadvertently) helped save the Union.
Loved the SNP Paper on 'the disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the EU Single Market' - curiously silent on the four times more important 'disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the UK Single Market'....
But surely the UK will be obliged to give them a good deal. All those English pie makers are going to want to carry on selling their products in the Scots market and will put pressure on Mrs May to give in to Scottish demands.
I am mildly relieved that my offer of a bet on Labour taking all of the Glasgow seats was not taken up yesterday.
The Holyrood system is largely proportional with a modest winners bonus for those that do particularly well in the constituencies. Making any kind of a government out of those figures would be tricky. Would Labour go into coalition with the Nats?
Mind you, the SNP have been in power for nearly 11 years and they still lead their opponents by double digits at Holyrood, in the constituency section at least.
I am mildly relieved that my offer of a bet on Labour taking all of the Glasgow seats was not taken up yesterday.
The Holyrood system is largely proportional with a modest winners bonus for those that do particularly well in the constituencies. Making any kind of a government out of those figures would be tricky. Would Labour go into coalition with the Nats?
Lab-Con Unionist Coalition? Mathematiocally possible, perhaps, but ......
The poll suggests the Tory revival in Scotland is more solid than some on here have suggested.
The interesting thing is how Davidson (doing 'well' - 45%) is clearly appreciated well beyond the Tories (±25%) - that's a tad ahead of Sturgeon's 43% 'Well' rating.
On topic, those Green and UKIP VI shares in the Westminster section might be an irrelevant as I can see neither of them putting up a full slate next time.
True and last time out the Greens stood in very few constituencies to help out their pals in the SNP. Probably saved them a few seats from Labour and 1 from the Tories (North Perthshire). I suspect they will do the same again. For some time now SNP + Green = support for independence and this poll is broadly consistent with that.
I am mildly relieved that my offer of a bet on Labour taking all of the Glasgow seats was not taken up yesterday.
The Holyrood system is largely proportional with a modest winners bonus for those that do particularly well in the constituencies. Making any kind of a government out of those figures would be tricky. Would Labour go into coalition with the Nats?
Lab-Con Unionist Coalition? Mathematiocally possible, perhaps, but ......
Not going to happen but it would mean that there would be no chance of forcing a referendum vote through Holyrood. This increases the pressure on Sturgeon to do something whilst it is still possible.
Little Englanders up early and out in force. Bitter twisted sad losers. The three wise monkeys have spoken and the dumbest multiple times.
It's Scottish Week at Lidl's.Haggis 99p but with proper British swede and British mashed potatoes for anyone who doesn't take to eating "foreign muck".
Little Englanders up early and out in force. Bitter twisted sad losers. The three wise monkeys have spoken and the dumbest multiple times.
It's Scottish Week at Lidl's.Haggis 99p but with proper British swede and British mashed potatoes for anyone who doesn't take to eating "foreign muck".
99p for a haggis? I think you'd be better sticking with a Macsween haggis. The Simon Howie haggis is also quite good, if a little spicier.
I seem to recall a lot of Scots Nats getting annoyed with me when I suggested that they were facing a real crisis at the next election. Given that the seat projections won't take into account further tactical voting, which must be likely, the position is potentially worse than the raw figures suggest.
Just on a second Scottish referendum: read a story the other day Sturgeon was going to wait until the deal to leave the EU was clearer before deciding whether to push for another one.
It's crackers to use leaving the EU, with whom Scotland does far less trade [ex-UK} than the UK, as a supposed justification for leaving the UK.
Also, it is snowing and cold. The dog was delighted.
Touch unfair. Having won all the seats, the only way was down for the SNP. This decline is relatively gradual. Their biggest challenge is handing over to the next generation. Few parties pull that off.
Mr. Jonathan, on the generational shift, both the Conservatives and Labour *could* have done it. Brown cut off all potential rivals at the knees which didn't help them, and the Conservatives lost Cameron and Osborne before the next generation had time to gain ministerial experience.
I'm not disputing your main point, just saying that it is possible. If Sturgeon lasts a while she might have a successor ready.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
Mr. L, jein. Carillion was making money on public sector (PFI) deals. It was losing money on the private sector ones.
Businesses can and do fail, and the taxpayer can't just bail out every failed business. There is, however, a question of how much of state provision should be provided by a single firm.
So far, the Government's handled this fairly well. I suspect they'll get it in the neck whatever they decide when it comes to throwing money, or not, at SMEs who are owed it by Carillion.
Because he is pro paying more for things than they should cost?
Because chaos makes radical solutions look more credible, particularly, fairly or not, if the government looks helpless or incompetent in letting it happen.
Because he is pro paying more for things than they should cost?
We had Interserve running serices in my hospital for a while, but the contract had to be ended early because of persistently failing to provide services of the right standard.
I seem to recall a lot of Scots Nats getting annoyed with me when I suggested that they were facing a real crisis at the next election. Given that the seat projections won't take into account further tactical voting, which must be likely, the position is potentially worse than the raw figures suggest.
I seem to recall a lot of Scots Nats getting annoyed with me when I suggested that they were facing a real crisis at the next election. Given that the seat projections won't take into account further tactical voting, which must be likely, the position is potentially worse than the raw figures suggest.
'A lot'?
James Kelly and his coterie had some fairly direct things to say on the subject on Scot Goes Pop.
Given this polling will Nicola Sturgeon really announce a new indyref this year?
Does she really want to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead?
That said it'll annoy some Nats if she doesn't.
How would she announce a new indyref, go the Catalan route and do so unilaterally?
She might ask Holyrood to approve one.
Makes it less unilateral.
I can’t see Mrs May approving a section 30 referendum.
I thought the SNP had always been careful to play within the rules, even if they would bemoan some of the rules - so I can see them gettin gHolyood to demand a ref date fo a particular time again, but they surely wouldn’t ‘announce’ a new one, organise it? I mean, asking again and being buffed allows grievances to be stoked after all, without the problematic legalities.
I won't comment on matters Scottish as the usual suspects are repeating their usual tired old boring lines and no one needs to throw petrol on that perfectly good fire.
As to outsourcing firms in the wake of the Carillion collapse, I had some dealings with this way back in the days of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) where local authorities at one time had to take the lowest price offered for the package of work being tendered.
This was insanity on so many levels - the incoming Contractor would be full of promises until they realised the truth of what they had taken on. The move since 2010 has been in-sourcing of many activities. I heard stories of Councils being charged £150 to change a light bulb in a care home or to fix a toilet seat at a day centre. Local authorities don't of course have to operate to a profit margin or satisfy shareholders so the economic argument for outsourcing day to day work fell apart.
Yes of course you have to involve the private sector on big projects but day-to-day work and especially in softer services such as IT and finance, I don't see the point. I know of Councils who have basically outsourced everything to Northgate or Capita or Atos or whoever and now have to pay the contractor to view their own information as the report needed isn't part of the standard suite of information provided.
With the coming of Cloud-based systems Councils have been able to take back control and most now insist on the Contractor accessing the Council's data through a Portal or similar.
The truth is outsourcing does work in some areas some of the time - it's not a panacea and in truth Councils were outmanoeuvred comprehensively in the early days and locked into appalling contracts whish ended up costing much more than had the services continue to be provided in-house.
I seem to recall a lot of Scots Nats getting annoyed with me when I suggested that they were facing a real crisis at the next election. Given that the seat projections won't take into account further tactical voting, which must be likely, the position is potentially worse than the raw figures suggest.
'A lot'?
James Kelly and his coterie had some fairly direct things to say on the subject on Scot Goes Pop.
Ah, I'd forgotten that many PBers are keen followers of JK.
Given this polling will Nicola Sturgeon really announce a new indyref this year?
Does she really want to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead?
That said it'll annoy some Nats if she doesn't.
How would she announce a new indyref, go the Catalan route and do so unilaterally?
She might ask Holyrood to approve one.
Makes it less unilateral.
I can’t see Mrs May approving a section 30 referendum.
I thought the SNP had always been careful to play within the rules, even if they would bemoan some of the rules - so I can see them gettin gHolyood to demand a ref date fo a particular time again, but they surely wouldn’t ‘announce’ a new one, organise it? I mean, asking again and being buffed allows grievances to be stoked after all, without the problematic legalities.
On a practical basis I don’t think she could hold a unilateral referendum.
I was speaking to an elections expert and he said it would require every council in Scotland to be SNP controlled, otherwise non SNP controlled councils would just ignore Holyrood/Sturgeon.
They’d say they’d be breaking the law in partaking in a non legal referendum.
Because he is pro paying more for things than they should cost?
We had Interserve running serices in my hospital for a while, but the contract had to be ended early because of persistently failing to provide services of the right standard.
Interserve are a different kind of company from Carillion in that they tend to provide the services themselves rather than subcontracting them. That's why with smaller turnover they have 80K employees compared to Carillion's 20K. They are not an intermediary to anything like the same extent.
But running multiple public service contracts efficiently requires a level of management skills and commitment that I think these large companies find really difficult to replicate. They pay a long way from top dollar, they treat their staff poorly, they have high turnover of staff as a result and they deliver poor performance.
I personally believe that public sector bodies should have a preference for obtaining local services from local companies that are focussed on that particular service so the management has simple and direct tasks to monitor. You will still have failures and there may need to be closer supervision and monitoring of the service (something urgently needed anyway) but I think that there would be better provision of services and less systemic problems than we have at the moment.
Because he is pro paying more for things than they should cost?
Not allocating resources purely according to the principles of the market is rather the point of socialism. It's a feature not a bug.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
I've never been wholly convinced of that. I thought it entirely feasible there could be a CON-SNP deal after 2015.
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
I can't see Orkney & Shetland being lost. And CS&ER and East Dumbartonshire are straight LD-SNP battles, with the Conservatives some way back in third.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Good morning all.
You're confusing us losing to the Normans as opposed to us thrashing the French. That said, we do tend to over-dwell on our victories. I doubt many people have ever heard of the battle of Castillon.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
I've never been wholly convinced of that. I thought it entirely feasible there could be a CON-SNP deal after 2015.
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
I think we would all agree that no one has a clue as to the make up of the next Parliament or when
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
I've never been wholly convinced of that. I thought it entirely feasible there could be a CON-SNP deal after 2015.
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
You can't have both CON+DUP+LD and LAB+SNP+Green both getting over the 50% (of sitting MPs) mark.
I seem to recall a lot of Scots Nats getting annoyed with me when I suggested that they were facing a real crisis at the next election. Given that the seat projections won't take into account further tactical voting, which must be likely, the position is potentially worse than the raw figures suggest.
It must be frustrating to be getting a strong vote share (which the SNP still do) but lose seats as everyone else gangs up on you.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
I've never been wholly convinced of that. I thought it entirely feasible there could be a CON-SNP deal after 2015.
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
You can't have both CON+DUP+LD and LAB+SNP+Green both getting over the 50% (of sitting MPs) mark.
Unless Kate Hoey is double-counted as Labour and DUP?
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
The strong consensus seems to be that it is Anglo Saxon in style and was made in England. Perhaps the take home message is about graciously accepting defeat?
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
The decline in SNP's block in Westminster is in interesting contrast to what happened in Ireland in Edwardian/George V times as Home Rule became major issue. Irish national parties held every seat iirc in the non-ulster counties and sent 70 or more MPs to Westminster. By 1918 of course de Valera was instructing his MPs to not attend Westminster.
However, a majority or plurality oppose a second referendum.
If we're looking at the impact on party politics, the salient point is that Remain voters are solidifying in their support for their position, while Leave voters are becoming less sure. That's the opposite of what you'd want to happen if you were pursuing a difficult and divisive policy.
I've just seen a story about a guard slipping on an icy platform and ending up under the train. The company responsible for gritting the platform: Carillion.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
However, a majority or plurality oppose a second referendum.
Yeah, polls showed for years that the UK public wanted a referendum on almost every EU treaty and EU membership in general. Did the remainers at the time argue that we should have one? Did they hell.
Having flicked through the LibDem seats in Scotland, I think every single one has the following order of parties: LD, SNP, Con, Lab.
Edinburgh West seems the most vulnerable one to me although maybe to the Tories rather than Labour. It probably should be Jo Swinson but I am expecting her to get a boost as leader (even although Farron didn't). I agree it is a little odd their seats don't go up by 1.
Didn't take long. Our very own Mr Independence RCS moves to California and within a few months he has persuaded most of the state to try to secede from the central government.
However, a majority or plurality oppose a second referendum.
Yeah, polls showed for years that the UK public wanted a referendum on almost every EU treaty and EU membership in general. Did the remainers at the time argue that we should have one? Did they hell.
Are you referring to voodoo polls such as this, which somehow got covered by the BBC?
However, a majority or plurality oppose a second referendum.
If we're looking at the impact on party politics, the salient point is that Remain voters are solidifying in their support for their position, while Leave voters are becoming less sure. That's the opposite of what you'd want to happen if you were pursuing a difficult and divisive policy.
I think that most Leave supporters were surprised to win, and a lot of them suspect that a way will be found to prevent Brexit from happening. On the other side are some Remain voters who disliked the EU, aren't terribly bothered about Brexit, and think the outcome of the vote should be enacted.
This is a very bad poll for the SNP. Not only would they only win a minority of Scottish MPs at Westminster but Unionists would win a majority of seats at Holyrood too with the SNP vote significantly down on 2016 at both the constituency level, where it has fallen from 47% to 38% and on the list, where it has fallen from 42% to 32%. There is also no support at all for any new indyref2 either before or after Brexit is completed.
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
I've never been wholly convinced of that. I thought it entirely feasible there could be a CON-SNP deal after 2015.
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
Sturgeon has always made clear the SNP would vote for a Labour PM over keeping the Tories in power so whether a seat has an SNP or Labour MP makes little difference to the Tories chances of staying in power and a Labour MP is at least likely to be a unionist unlike an SNP MP
Having flicked through the LibDem seats in Scotland, I think every single one has the following order of parties: LD, SNP, Con, Lab.
Edinburgh West seems the most vulnerable one to me although maybe to the Tories rather than Labour. It probably should be Jo Swinson but I am expecting her to get a boost as leader (even although Farron didn't). I agree it is a little odd their seats don't go up by 1.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
Well yes that tends to happen when companies go into liquidation. The issue I have was with compulsory 30 day payments. We pay 30 day, end of month. Strict 30 days would be an administrative nightmare.
Comments
Does she really want to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead?
That said it'll annoy some Nats if she doesn't.
Loved the SNP Paper on 'the disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the EU Single Market' - curiously silent on the four times more important 'disaster awaiting Scotland if we leave the UK Single Market'....
The Holyrood system is largely proportional with a modest winners bonus for those that do particularly well in the constituencies. Making any kind of a government out of those figures would be tricky. Would Labour go into coalition with the Nats?
Doing Well - net - (vs Oct17)
Davidson: +15 (-2)
Sturgeon: 0 (-)
Corbyn: -3 (-23)
Leonard: -15 (SLAB, for those who may have blinked - or the 60% 'Don't Know')
May: -47 (-2)
The situation is probably worse for the SNP.
Just on a second Scottish referendum: read a story the other day Sturgeon was going to wait until the deal to leave the EU was clearer before deciding whether to push for another one.
It's crackers to use leaving the EU, with whom Scotland does far less trade [ex-UK} than the UK, as a supposed justification for leaving the UK.
Also, it is snowing and cold. The dog was delighted.
I'm not disputing your main point, just saying that it is possible. If Sturgeon lasts a while she might have a successor ready.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/953540486949736449
Corbyn will be encouraged he will pick up some more SNP MPs but given the SNP would back him over the Tories anyway that is less significant
Businesses can and do fail, and the taxpayer can't just bail out every failed business. There is, however, a question of how much of state provision should be provided by a single firm.
So far, the Government's handled this fairly well. I suspect they'll get it in the neck whatever they decide when it comes to throwing money, or not, at SMEs who are owed it by Carillion.
http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/controversial-leicester-nhs-contract-scrapped-four-years-early
Not sorry to see them go at all in Leicester.
Makes it less unilateral.
I can’t see Mrs May approving a section 30 referendum.
I won't comment on matters Scottish as the usual suspects are repeating their usual tired old boring lines and no one needs to throw petrol on that perfectly good fire.
As to outsourcing firms in the wake of the Carillion collapse, I had some dealings with this way back in the days of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) where local authorities at one time had to take the lowest price offered for the package of work being tendered.
This was insanity on so many levels - the incoming Contractor would be full of promises until they realised the truth of what they had taken on. The move since 2010 has been in-sourcing of many activities. I heard stories of Councils being charged £150 to change a light bulb in a care home or to fix a toilet seat at a day centre. Local authorities don't of course have to operate to a profit margin or satisfy shareholders so the economic argument for outsourcing day to day work fell apart.
Yes of course you have to involve the private sector on big projects but day-to-day work and especially in softer services such as IT and finance, I don't see the point. I know of Councils who have basically outsourced everything to Northgate or Capita or Atos or whoever and now have to pay the contractor to view their own information as the report needed isn't part of the standard suite of information provided.
With the coming of Cloud-based systems Councils have been able to take back control and most now insist on the Contractor accessing the Council's data through a Portal or similar.
The truth is outsourcing does work in some areas some of the time - it's not a panacea and in truth Councils were outmanoeuvred comprehensively in the early days and locked into appalling contracts whish ended up costing much more than had the services continue to be provided in-house.
I was speaking to an elections expert and he said it would require every council in Scotland to be SNP controlled, otherwise non SNP controlled councils would just ignore Holyrood/Sturgeon.
They’d say they’d be breaking the law in partaking in a non legal referendum.
Does anyone ?
But running multiple public service contracts efficiently requires a level of management skills and commitment that I think these large companies find really difficult to replicate. They pay a long way from top dollar, they treat their staff poorly, they have high turnover of staff as a result and they deliver poor performance.
I personally believe that public sector bodies should have a preference for obtaining local services from local companies that are focussed on that particular service so the management has simple and direct tasks to monitor. You will still have failures and there may need to be closer supervision and monitoring of the service (something urgently needed anyway) but I think that there would be better provision of services and less systemic problems than we have at the moment.
How does that not result in Fife NE (majority 2) becoming a LibDem seat?
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
The problem for the Conservatives in those numbers (which do seem a little contradictory) is their net loss of two seats and Labour's net gain of ten. Yesterday's ICM numbers Baxtered (oh come on) put the CON and LAB numbers about equal. I think you could argue that but basically there's no CON-DUP majority any more.
So you have the SNP on 25-30 seats and the LDs on 15 seats as the two unknown quantities and assuming the 7 or 8 SF MPs still don't turn up that means (according to my crude sums) 321/322 for a majority. LAB (and others) plus SNP probably just crawl over the line. CON+DUP+LDs probably just get over the line as well.
Plenty to play for and anyone confident in predicting the next GE shouldn't be.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/953550767566344192
I can't see Orkney & Shetland being lost. And CS&ER and East Dumbartonshire are straight LD-SNP battles, with the Conservatives some way back in third.
You're confusing us losing to the Normans as opposed to us thrashing the French. That said, we do tend to over-dwell on our victories. I doubt many people have ever heard of the battle of Castillon.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trapped-scottish-drivers-forced-to-deep-fry-each-other-201012073324
Didn't take long. Our very own Mr Independence RCS moves to California and within a few months he has persuaded most of the state to try to secede from the central government.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/16/new-california-declares-independence-california-bid-become-51st-state/1036681001/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7273668.stm