Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Before we can make judgements about the outcome of an early ge

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Before we can make judgements about the outcome of an early general election we need a new Scotland only poll

There’s been a lot of GB voting intention polling since Mr Johnson became the new Tory leader and Prime Minister but none of it has been Scotland specific. One thing we do know is that is can be highly misleading keying the latest GB poll shares into Baxter and getting anything that is relevant to Scotland.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FPT

    I am probably biased but I don't think I've ever heard Anna Soubry being enthusiastic before:

    Anna Soubry MP

    @Anna_Soubry
    Excellent meeting between all the opposition party leaders this morning. We agree we will work together to stop a no deal #Brexit by legislation


    That sounds like the plan is Boles's not Corbyn's.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,414
    Archbishop of Canterbury next on the list I see.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, yes. Scotland was once boring in general elections. It is now chaotic. Common sense suggests that the SNP should be able to hoover up a lot of seats but it would be nice to have some evidential backing for that hunch.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    FPT:

    Those concerned about the deep state might be interested in this example from the US:

    https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1166306976034381824

    Surely this just a consequence of outsourcing one tool of economic policy to technocrats. Sometimes government policy may create a dilemma for the technocrats (see also the BoE and Brexit).
  • FPT

    I am probably biased but I don't think I've ever heard Anna Soubry being enthusiastic before:

    Anna Soubry MP

    @Anna_Soubry
    Excellent meeting between all the opposition party leaders this morning. We agree we will work together to stop a no deal #Brexit by legislation


    That sounds like the plan is Boles's not Corbyn's.
    Corbyn sidelined and had no choice but to do it through the HOC.

    He has no chance of the HOC putting him in no 10 this side of a GE
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    edited August 2019
    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited August 2019
    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,883
    edited August 2019
    I was in Scotland last week, stayed in Glasgow. Monday evening checked out the SECC and SSC, Tuesday did the train from Ayr to Stranraer, Wednesday did Criy to Dundee plus bus to St Andrews. Thursday did Perth to Aviemore and the Strathspey from Aviemore to Broomhill. Friday checked out Wemyss Bay for the second time before heading back to London.

    Hope to do Oban and Mallaig next week!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    1. Corbyn says he will do X
    2. PB Tories claim that Corbyn secretly has a plan to do the opposite of X
    3. Corbyn does X
    4. PB Tories say "Look how weak Corbyn is, he was forced to do X!"
    5. Repeat
  • algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Agreed
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    edited August 2019

    Corbyn sidelined and had no choice but to do it through the HOC.

    He has no chance of the HOC putting him in no 10 this side of a GE

    He appears to have compromised in order to prioritize stopping No Deal.

    Wonder why?

    Can't be that he wants stop to No Deal - obvs - so there must be something else going on. A darker motive.

    Probably the same one that's making him offer Ref2 even though everyone knows he's a hard Leaver.

    Truth will out eventually. It always does.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
  • He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    I think the idea is that if he went VONC first he would lose. If they try and fail to stop no deal through legislation then he can bring a VONC and hope people are desperate enough to vote for him.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    On topic -

    Scotland and the Tories.

    Will they rebrand as pro-Leave if there is a pre-Brexit GE?

    This would position them as the ONLY such party in Scotland and therefore I can see why they might.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
    Presumably the law that is passed will require him to seek an extension
  • He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
    And how will that happen before the 31st October
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,414
    Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,038

    I was in Scotland last week, stayed in Glasgow. Monday evening checked out the SECC and SSC, Tuesday did the train from Ayr to Stranraer, Wednesday did Criy to Dundee plus bus to St Andrews. Thursday did Perth to Aviemore and the Strathspey from Aviemore to Broomhill. Friday checked out Wemyss Bay for the second time before heading back to London.

    Hope to do Oban and Mallaig next week!

    Have you been travelling to/from Scotland on the sleeper? If so, I hope you've been making a proper record of your moves!

    BTW - My yellow pen was active at the weekend: Leyburn to Redmire
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    Yes if you frame it that way, but thats not whats happening.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.
  • dixiedean said:

    Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

    It would be a bit strange if they didnt
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    Will this pact have a secret protocol?

    https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1166317280797609984
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    1. Corbyn says he will do X
    2. PB Tories claim that Corbyn secretly has a plan to do the opposite of X
    3. Corbyn does X
    4. PB Tories say "Look how weak Corbyn is, he was forced to do X!"
    5. Repeat

    Am reminded slightly of the Chris Williamson affair.

    Scandal that he won't act!

    CW is suspended from the party.

    Scandal that it took nearly 12 hours! - and so pathetic how he changes his tune and caves under pressure.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    edited August 2019

    dixiedean said:

    Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

    It would be a bit strange if they didnt
    Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    "If" doing a lot of work there, but in vain.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Assuming "the deal" is May's Deal as enshrined in the Withdrawal Agreement, that's not necessarily easy any more - because the Prime Minister and leader of the largest party is now someone who's opposed to it, has repeatedly stated his opposition, and would presumably whip against it.

    To "agree the deal", you'd have to get all Opposition parties plus a substantial number of Tory rebels to do a complete volte-face and suddenly back a policy which they too have been arguing against for months.

    I wouldn't call that easy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,414
    edited August 2019
    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

    It would be a bit strange if they didnt
    Weird onn WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
    If the government were so bloody pro a deal, they wouldn't have stuffed Ministerial positions full of those who voted against it. They would also have recalled Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity, and expelled anyone who voted against or abstained from the Conservative Party.
    If they wanted a different deal they would have produced a full plan and presented it to Brussels at the earliest opportunity.
    But they didn't. So I conclude they don't.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    tlg86 said:

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.
    There is no established church in two of the four countries of the UK, nor (I believe) in any of the Commonwealth realms and the monarchy seems to be doing fine there.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    algarkirk said:

    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    I think there will be a deal but I will be surprised if it gets done by 31 Oct.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    Brexiteers accuse the BBC of pro-remain bias. Remainers accuse the BBC of pro-brexit bias.

    It’s ridiculous.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If you really don't trust the prime minister, then word the legislation so that any offer of extension made by the EU side must be put to a yes/no vote in the House of Commons with the PM communicating the outcome back to the EU Commission. Of all the issues with getting such legislation over the line, that one can be solved in a paragraph I think.
  • I see Norman Lamb is standing down in North Norfolk.

    Will be a challenge for the LDs to hold such a Brexity seat (I suspect Lamb has a very large personal vote).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Assuming "the deal" is May's Deal as enshrined in the Withdrawal Agreement, that's not necessarily easy any more - because the Prime Minister and leader of the largest party is now someone who's opposed to it, has repeatedly stated his opposition, and would presumably whip against it.

    To "agree the deal", you'd have to get all Opposition parties plus a substantial number of Tory rebels to do a complete volte-face and suddenly back a policy which they too have been arguing against for months.

    I wouldn't call that easy.
    Yes in practical terms it is not easy, but the point deserves making repeatedly that everyone handwringing about ways to stop no deal and sobbing great big crocodile tears about the prospect of no deal, had a very very easy way of avoiding it.

    Fair enough they did not want to stop it in that way. But they cannot simultaneously pretend that they would consider anything to stop no deal because that is provably a lie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited August 2019
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    I think there will be a deal but I will be surprised if it gets done by 31 Oct.
    Then Boris is doomed. He has been unequivocal: better deal and out by then or otherwise out by then. Hes left no room to say he almost has a great deal just give him, say, 2 more weeks.

    The lack of wiggle room to allow even for positive changes- eg the EU bend and we just need a few more weeks to resolve - was a sure sign the Gov is going shit or bust on a deal. Either its simply solved in a short time or they give up, they've left no time for details to be worked out.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    I see Norman Lamb is standing down in North Norfolk.

    Will be a challenge for the LDs to hold such a Brexity seat (I suspect Lamb has a very large personal vote).

    Also a lot of tactical Labour voting there which may not transfer to another candidate. On the other hand, Brexit Party may poll a substantial vote.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Assuming "the deal" is May's Deal as enshrined in the Withdrawal Agreement, that's not necessarily easy any more - because the Prime Minister and leader of the largest party is now someone who's opposed to it, has repeatedly stated his opposition, and would presumably whip against it.

    To "agree the deal", you'd have to get all Opposition parties plus a substantial number of Tory rebels to do a complete volte-face and suddenly back a policy which they too have been arguing against for months.

    I wouldn't call that easy.
    Yes in practical terms it is not easy, but the point deserves making repeatedly that everyone handwringing about ways to stop no deal and sobbing great big crocodile tears about the prospect of no deal, had a very very easy way of avoiding it.

    Fair enough they did not want to stop it in that way. But they cannot simultaneously pretend that they would consider anything to stop no deal because that is provably a lie.
    As to the deal which is on offer, a thin and virtually transparent fig leaf will be enough come mid to late October. Anyway the sovereign power in the UK is parliament not government. Ultimately they can do as they choose. But not doing is a different thing.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    kinabalu said:

    1. Corbyn says he will do X
    2. PB Tories claim that Corbyn secretly has a plan to do the opposite of X
    3. Corbyn does X
    4. PB Tories say "Look how weak Corbyn is, he was forced to do X!"
    5. Repeat

    Am reminded slightly of the Chris Williamson affair.

    Scandal that he won't act!

    CW is suspended from the party.

    Scandal that it took nearly 12 hours! - and so pathetic how he changes his tune and caves under pressure.
    Saw a similar thing with Cameron and the Mitchell affair.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    I think there will be a deal but I will be surprised if it gets done by 31 Oct.
    Agree. Deal tied up by 31 Oct, but to be actualised later is the more likely outcome.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,152
    edited August 2019
    On most of the latest Scottish subsamples the Tories are on about 20 to 25% and the SNP still below 2015 levels so even if they lose some seats to the nationalists the Tories are likely to at least hold a few seats and do better in Scotland than they did at every general election from 1997 to 2017.

    Slab though are likely to lose all their seats to the SNP bar Edinburgh South. The Scottish LDs though on current polling could even gain a seat from the SNP, Fife North East
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Assuming "the deal" is May's Deal as enshrined in the Withdrawal Agreement, that's not necessarily easy any more - because the Prime Minister and leader of the largest party is now someone who's opposed to it, has repeatedly stated his opposition, and would presumably whip against it.

    To "agree the deal", you'd have to get all Opposition parties plus a substantial number of Tory rebels to do a complete volte-face and suddenly back a policy which they too have been arguing against for months.

    I wouldn't call that easy.
    Yes in practical terms it is not easy, but the point deserves making repeatedly that everyone handwringing about ways to stop no deal and sobbing great big crocodile tears about the prospect of no deal, had a very very easy way of avoiding it.

    Fair enough they did not want to stop it in that way. But they cannot simultaneously pretend that they would consider anything to stop no deal because that is provably a lie.
    As to the deal which is on offer, a thin and virtually transparent fig leaf will be enough come mid to late October. Anyway the sovereign power in the UK is parliament not government. Ultimately they can do as they choose. But not doing is a different thing.

    We've been told fig leaves will get it over the line many times before. It has yet to occur and the Spartans wont be won over by a fig leaf.
  • "What is hugely interesting for election watchers is that the largest majority that the SNP secured in any of its 36 Scottish seats at the last election was 47%"

    I'd love it if the separatists lost seats. Hopefully with anti-separatist tactical votes that is what will happen.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
    And how will that happen before the 31st October
    If an issue of that importance arose it would be in front of the Supreme Court PDQ - within hours if necessary I think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Not a master plan, he just has less to fear if it happens.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    I think there will be a deal but I will be surprised if it gets done by 31 Oct.
    Then Boris is doomed. He has been unequivocal: better deal and out by then or otherwise out by then. Hes left no room to say he almost has a great deal just give him, say, 2 more weeks.

    The lack of wiggle room to allow even for positive changes- eg the EU bend and we just need a few more weeks to resolve - was a sure sign the Gov is going shit or bust on a deal. Either its simply solved in a short time or they give up, they've left no time for details to be worked out.
    Not doomed. The broken promise - electorally essential for his campaign but plainly false - will be forgotten in the melee of actually winning something. (Last week everyone was writing obits for England cricket....)

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
    And how will that happen before the 31st October
    If an issue of that importance arose it would be in front of the Supreme Court PDQ - within hours if necessary I think.
    All speculation piled on speculation. Government policy is to do a deal.

  • Once again the separatist triad ignore a Scotland only thread. They love to whine from the sidelines.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,993
    My own observations from 2017, certainly in Edinburgh, was that there was an unofficial and undeclared anti-SNP consensus, delivering Ed West to the LibDems and a thumping majority for Ian Murray in Ed South. There was also a lot of LibDem-> Tory lending of votes in the NE.

    IMO this has probably diminished due to the rancour between Leave and Remain and notwithstanding the usual MSM stance the SNP may make better use of their pluralities in most seats.

    The elephant in the room is of course the Alex Salmond case, but that will not be aired until later next year.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    If Johnson refused to obey the law then the courts could order him to do so.
    And how will that happen before the 31st October
    But it would rob leaving of its legitimacy and make a rapid rejoining easier.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    He knows he would be humiliated in a vonc so had no choice

    How they do it through legislation will be interesting

    Force Boris to ask for an extension and then he refuses the EU offer.

    What then ?
    Too late. The agenda is about what to do, not what not to do. Stopping no deal is easy - agree the deal.

    Assuming "the deal" is May's Deal as enshrined in the Withdrawal Agreement, that's not necessarily easy any more - because the Prime Minister and leader of the largest party is now someone who's opposed to it, has repeatedly stated his opposition, and would presumably whip against it.

    To "agree the deal", you'd have to get all Opposition parties plus a substantial number of Tory rebels to do a complete volte-face and suddenly back a policy which they too have been arguing against for months.

    I wouldn't call that easy.
    Yes in practical terms it is not easy, but the point deserves making repeatedly that everyone handwringing about ways to stop no deal and sobbing great big crocodile tears about the prospect of no deal, had a very very easy way of avoiding it.

    Fair enough they did not want to stop it in that way. But they cannot simultaneously pretend that they would consider anything to stop no deal because that is provably a lie.
    As to the deal which is on offer, a thin and virtually transparent fig leaf will be enough come mid to late October. Anyway the sovereign power in the UK is parliament not government. Ultimately they can do as they choose. But not doing is a different thing.

    We've been told fig leaves will get it over the line many times before. It has yet to occur and the Spartans wont be won over by a fig leaf.
    It will be interesting when Labour faces a choice by late October between allowing a deal by abstaining and knowing that their opposition would cause us to crash out - possibly even attracting some blame for it.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    kle4 said:

    Then Boris is doomed. He has been unequivocal: better deal and out by then or otherwise out by then. Hes left no room to say he almost has a great deal just give him, say, 2 more weeks.

    The lack of wiggle room to allow even for positive changes- eg the EU bend and we just need a few more weeks to resolve - was a sure sign the Gov is going shit or bust on a deal. Either its simply solved in a short time or they give up, they've left no time for details to be worked out.

    I expect him to agree an extension but I realize this view is not held by many.

    The evidence (such as it is) supports the general consensus that he is deadly serious about 31 Oct and therefore it will be No Deal or an election - or both.

    Not long until we find out. Not long at all. We will know before the leaves go brown.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Then Boris is doomed. He has been unequivocal: better deal and out by then or otherwise out by then. Hes left no room to say he almost has a great deal just give him, say, 2 more weeks.

    The lack of wiggle room to allow even for positive changes- eg the EU bend and we just need a few more weeks to resolve - was a sure sign the Gov is going shit or bust on a deal. Either its simply solved in a short time or they give up, they've left no time for details to be worked out.

    I expect him to agree an extension but I realize this view is not held by many.

    The evidence (such as it is) supports the general consensus that he is deadly serious about 31 Oct and therefore it will be No Deal or an election - or both.

    Not long until we find out. Not long at all. We will know before the leaves go brown.
    I suspect he won't get an election without an extension - so from next week it's Boris pushing through No Deal with Parliament trying to stop him.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,993
    HYUFD said:

    On most of the latest Scottish subsamples the Tories are on about 20 to 25% and the SNP still below 2015 levels so even if they lose some seats to the nationalists the Tories are likely to at least hold a few seats and do better in Scotland than they did at every general election from 1997 to 2017.

    Slab though are likely to lose all their seats to the SNP bar Edinburgh South. The Scottish LDs though on current polling could even gain a seat from the SNP, Fife North East

    For my own amusement, I Baxtered a few scenarios to see how big a swing would unseat Ian Murray - turns out something like 47% SNP / 9% SLAB Scottish national vote shares would be required!. Just shows how nonsensical UNS can be when looking at a small unrepresentative sample of seats.
  • justin124 said:

    I see Norman Lamb is standing down in North Norfolk.

    Will be a challenge for the LDs to hold such a Brexity seat (I suspect Lamb has a very large personal vote).

    Also a lot of tactical Labour voting there which may not transfer to another candidate. On the other hand, Brexit Party may poll a substantial vote.
    In 1992, the seat was 48% Con, 27% LD, 23% Lab
    In 1997, the seat was 37% Con, 34% LD, 25% Lab

    Lamb was then able to get in, in 2001 by squeezing the Lab vote (it got as low as 6% in 2010).

    The current Con vote is 42% which is very low for a seat like this (retirees, rural, Brexit voters), which suggests there are a fair few Tories for Lamb as well as Lab tactical votes.

    It will be interesting to see if the LDs pick an out and out remainer or someone who is at least open to a soft Brexit.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    "What is hugely interesting for election watchers is that the largest majority that the SNP secured in any of its 36 Scottish seats at the last election was 47%"

    I'd love it if the separatists lost seats. Hopefully with anti-separatist tactical votes that is what will happen.

    Surely that 47% relates to vote share rather than 'majority'?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,711
    edited August 2019
    Pre 31 Oct GE now looking impossible unless Boris calls it himself (gets 2/3 maj in Commons) - there won't be time to go through the 14 day period if VONC.

    Mentioned above but not discussed - if all opposition are against conference recess, does that mean they are proposing to cancel Conferences?

    If so, interesting re Labour as that's where policy made re Brexit.

    I guess as an alternative Conferences could be cut to just two days over weekend.
  • I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
  • justin124 said:

    "What is hugely interesting for election watchers is that the largest majority that the SNP secured in any of its 36 Scottish seats at the last election was 47%"

    I'd love it if the separatists lost seats. Hopefully with anti-separatist tactical votes that is what will happen.

    Surely that 47% relates to vote share rather than 'majority'?
    That's what I assumed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865
    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
  • From next week the parliamentary theatre will be Bercow v Jacob Rees Mogg

    And I am on the high seas from the 14th Sept to 8th October

    Still be able to watch it from North America
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865
    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

    It would be a bit strange if they didnt
    Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
    A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    I see Norman Lamb is standing down in North Norfolk.

    Will be a challenge for the LDs to hold such a Brexity seat (I suspect Lamb has a very large personal vote).

    Also a lot of tactical Labour voting there which may not transfer to another candidate. On the other hand, Brexit Party may poll a substantial vote.
    In 1992, the seat was 48% Con, 27% LD, 23% Lab
    In 1997, the seat was 37% Con, 34% LD, 25% Lab

    Lamb was then able to get in, in 2001 by squeezing the Lab vote (it got as low as 6% in 2010).

    The current Con vote is 42% which is very low for a seat like this (retirees, rural, Brexit voters), which suggests there are a fair few Tories for Lamb as well as Lab tactical votes.

    It will be interesting to see if the LDs pick an out and out remainer or someone who is at least open to a soft Brexit.
    Indeed - though the seat also has a Labour history having been held by Edwin Gooch and Bert Hazell 1945 - 1970. Admittedly there have been massive demographic changes since the late 1960s - and various boundary changes. Nevertheless there is certainly a more significant underlying Labour vote there than suggested by the headline data.In 1992 I almost became the Labour candidate there myself!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865
    sarissa said:

    My own observations from 2017, certainly in Edinburgh, was that there was an unofficial and undeclared anti-SNP consensus, delivering Ed West to the LibDems and a thumping majority for Ian Murray in Ed South. There was also a lot of LibDem-> Tory lending of votes in the NE.

    IMO this has probably diminished due to the rancour between Leave and Remain and notwithstanding the usual MSM stance the SNP may make better use of their pluralities in most seats.

    The elephant in the room is of course the Alex Salmond case, but that will not be aired until later next year.

    My understanding is that the indictment (charge sheet) is supposed to be getting served in October which should mean that the trial is fairly early in the new year. It's a tricky one for Nicola but I would be quite surprised if we get a denouement of the trial before the GE.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited August 2019
    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will be dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
  • justin124 said:

    "What is hugely interesting for election watchers is that the largest majority that the SNP secured in any of its 36 Scottish seats at the last election was 47%"

    I'd love it if the separatists lost seats. Hopefully with anti-separatist tactical votes that is what will happen.

    Surely that 47% relates to vote share rather than 'majority'?
    That's what I assumed.
    The SNP's vote share is unusual in that it is very consistent across the whole of Scotland (in contrast to say Labour with 83% in East Ham but 9% in Berwickshire and the Tories with 68% in Maldon vs. 9% in Knowsley. This means that a moderate swing to the SNP can see them win almost all seats (back to 56/59) but a moderate swing against them can see them reduced to a handful (similar to where they were before the surge
  • It has been there all along

    It reminds me of my dear lady wife - starts her shopping in one shop and goes round and round multiple shops and then declares

    'I am going to buy the first one I saw'
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
  • justin124 said:

    "What is hugely interesting for election watchers is that the largest majority that the SNP secured in any of its 36 Scottish seats at the last election was 47%"

    I'd love it if the separatists lost seats. Hopefully with anti-separatist tactical votes that is what will happen.

    Surely that 47% relates to vote share rather than 'majority'?
    That's what I assumed.
    The SNP's vote share is unusual in that it is very consistent across the whole of Scotland (in contrast to say Labour with 83% in East Ham but 9% in Berwickshire and the Tories with 68% in Maldon vs. 9% in Knowsley. This means that a moderate swing to the SNP can see them win almost all seats (back to 56/59) but a moderate swing against them can see them reduced to a handful (similar to where they were before the surge
    Let's hope us anti-separatists can get our act together and reduce them to the rump that they deserve to be.
  • I was in Scotland last week, stayed in Glasgow. Monday evening checked out the SECC and SSC, Tuesday did the train from Ayr to Stranraer, Wednesday did Criy to Dundee plus bus to St Andrews. Thursday did Perth to Aviemore and the Strathspey from Aviemore to Broomhill. Friday checked out Wemyss Bay for the second time before heading back to London.

    Hope to do Oban and Mallaig next week!

    Have you been travelling to/from Scotland on the sleeper? If so, I hope you've been making a proper record of your moves!

    BTW - My yellow pen was active at the weekend: Leyburn to Redmire
    Nah, I went on the 1230 from Euston, returned on the 1640 from Glasgow :)
    Wensleydale? Not done that yet.

    Mind, you, I did do the Rex Express at Paradise Wildlife Park (Herts.) a couple of weeks ago!
  • I was in Scotland last week, stayed in Glasgow. Monday evening checked out the SECC and SSC, Tuesday did the train from Ayr to Stranraer, Wednesday did Criy to Dundee plus bus to St Andrews. Thursday did Perth to Aviemore and the Strathspey from Aviemore to Broomhill. Friday checked out Wemyss Bay for the second time before heading back to London.

    Hope to do Oban and Mallaig next week!

    Have you been travelling to/from Scotland on the sleeper? If so, I hope you've been making a proper record of your moves!

    BTW - My yellow pen was active at the weekend: Leyburn to Redmire
    Nah, I went on the 1230 from Euston, returned on the 1640 from Glasgow :)
    Wensleydale? Not done that yet.

    Mind, you, I did do the Rex Express at Paradise Wildlife Park (Herts.) a couple of weeks ago!
    Home come you can head as far north as Dundee but not Aberdeen, the home of the brilliant and great JBriskinindyref2 ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
  • I see Norman Lamb is standing down in North Norfolk.

    Will be a challenge for the LDs to hold such a Brexity seat (I suspect Lamb has a very large personal vote).

    One less of the good'uns in parliament. Sad.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

    For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
    I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.







  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited August 2019
    Cone on, we all know it, we are getting a GE. Even uncle thickie can see that, so he has positioned himself as being able to say well i did everything possible.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    "If" doing a lot of work there, but in vain.
    Not really. This is a very rational view of things. Leave was and still is largely predicated on xenophobia, which is, in the view of most thoughtful people, pretty repugnant. Capital punishment can be seen in the same way. It may be popular with many, but, popular or not, it does not stand up to moral scrutiny, unless you believe state sponsored murder is acceptable. Both these subjects are "political", but a church leader has every right to express opinion on both.
  • I was in Scotland last week, stayed in Glasgow. Monday evening checked out the SECC and SSC, Tuesday did the train from Ayr to Stranraer, Wednesday did Criy to Dundee plus bus to St Andrews. Thursday did Perth to Aviemore and the Strathspey from Aviemore to Broomhill. Friday checked out Wemyss Bay for the second time before heading back to London.

    Hope to do Oban and Mallaig next week!

    Have you been travelling to/from Scotland on the sleeper? If so, I hope you've been making a proper record of your moves!

    BTW - My yellow pen was active at the weekend: Leyburn to Redmire
    Nah, I went on the 1230 from Euston, returned on the 1640 from Glasgow :)
    Wensleydale? Not done that yet.

    Mind, you, I did do the Rex Express at Paradise Wildlife Park (Herts.) a couple of weeks ago!
    Home come you can head as far north as Dundee but not Aberdeen, the home of the brilliant and great JBriskinindyref2 ?
    Aberdeen I'm saving for a later date :)

    I had my mum with me, you see. She loves photography so I suggested we go to St Andrews. Ulterior motive was doing Croy to Dundee via Perth for the first time, as opposed to the Journey Planner suggested Glasgow-Edinburgh-Leuchars.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,534
    kinabalu said:

    1. Corbyn says he will do X
    2. PB Tories claim that Corbyn secretly has a plan to do the opposite of X
    3. Corbyn does X
    4. PB Tories say "Look how weak Corbyn is, he was forced to do X!"
    5. Repeat

    Am reminded slightly of the Chris Williamson affair.

    Scandal that he won't act!

    CW is suspended from the party.

    Scandal that it took nearly 12 hours! - and so pathetic how he changes his tune and caves under pressure.
    Yes, the Corbyn allergy makes it really hard for for some here to accept what I've been saying for years - Corbyn is mildly pro-Remain, though not particularly bent on any one solution and open to soft Brexit. But he's militantly anti-No Deal. I think he's playing a difficult hand well in Parliamentary terms.

    As I said before the thread, I wonder if cooperation on this will build trust to facilitate cooperation on other matters.
  • DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    Charles said:

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
    You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.
  • DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Fucking LOL - no more Kool-Aid for this poster.
  • Yorkcity said:

    I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

    For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
    I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.







    He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    At the time of the 1975 Referendum Scotland was the least pro- EEC area within the UK - indeed the SNP advocated a Leave vote at the time.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited August 2019

    Yorkcity said:

    I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

    For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
    I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.







    He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
    I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    "If" doing a lot of work there, but in vain.
    Not really. This is a very rational view of things. Leave was and still is largely predicated on xenophobia, which is, in the view of most thoughtful people, pretty repugnant. Capital punishment can be seen in the same way. It may be popular with many, but, popular or not, it does not stand up to moral scrutiny, unless you believe state sponsored murder is acceptable. Both these subjects are "political", but a church leader has every right to express opinion on both.
    Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment. BTW capital punishment is open to many objections, and I don't support it but it is simplistic to describe it as murder.

    The A of C is a thoroughly good and admirable man in every way. He would still, I think, be unwise to support a negative anti No Deal campaign when it offers no coherent alternative, and ignores government policy which is to agree a deal.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
    Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
    Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
    Those 2017 tory votes were anti-separatist (Davidson's a remainer remember)

    2015 was peak SNP

    It's only downwards for broken sleazy Separatists.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    edited August 2019
    algarkirk said:

    Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

    This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

    If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

  • algarkirk said:

    Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

    This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
    Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,758

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
    Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
    I think it most likely was. But, on the other hand, the union remains resonant notwithstanding Brexit, so I don't think SCon will be completely wiped out, or reduced to just David Mundell. As David says, Leavers really have nowhere else to go, and the face of the party will remain Ruth who will easily out-perform SLAB to be the party of choice for unionists.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    edited August 2019
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

    It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

    odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
    If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
    "If" doing a lot of work there, but in vain.
    Not really. This is a very rational view of things. Leave was and still is largely predicated on xenophobia, which is, in the view of most thoughtful people, pretty repugnant. Capital punishment can be seen in the same way. It may be popular with many, but, popular or not, it does not stand up to moral scrutiny, unless you believe state sponsored murder is acceptable. Both these subjects are "political", but a church leader has every right to express opinion on both.
    Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment. BTW capital punishment is open to many objections, and I don't support it but it is simplistic to describe it as murder.

    The A of C is a thoroughly good and admirable man in every way. He would still, I think, be unwise to support a negative anti No Deal campaign when it offers no coherent alternative, and ignores government policy which is to agree a deal.

    The only reason why Lithuanian fruit pickers come to the UK is because of our (means tested rather than contribution based) benefits and tax credits system.

    If we had fixed that problem Brexit would never have been an issue..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

    The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

    Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
    To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
    Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

    In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.


    Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
    Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
    Probably but it is not certain. Ruth is the face of Unionism in Scotland, that is why our SNP friends give her so much abuse on here. Labour have no equivalent any more. Kezia was close, Leonard is invisible.

    As a remainer herself Brexit is more complicated but Tory MPs don't seem to find it so. The ponds in which they are fishing are smaller but there are far fewer anglers throwing out bait.
This discussion has been closed.