It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
It's perfectly possible for someone to honestly believe that Brexit is good and Scottish independence is bad, wouldn't you say?
Quite possibly, but to deny Scottish self determination on the issue is a contradiction. To vote against it in Sindyref3 is compatible.
It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
It's perfectly possible for someone to honestly believe that Brexit is good and Scottish independence is bad, wouldn't you say?
Quite possibly, but to deny Scottish self determination on the issue is a contradiction. To vote against it in Sindyref3 is compatible.
the people denying the Scots self determiniation are the SNP
Then why do they keep electing the SNP in general elections by a landslide? Why do they keep electing the SNP into the Government?
Its a not uncommon phenomenon, around the world, for pro-independence parties to get votes from people who then don't back actual independence.
It helps that they are the only credible centre left party in scotland. SLab are nowhere and LibDems are still a busted flush
r
You have members of your family who are thick.
I've heard that as much as 1/3 of SNP voters don't want indepedndance.
The mind really boggles at the idiocy that goes on on the north of the island.
Excuse me that is just wrong and unnecessary
Indeed these members of my family have contributed greatly to the Scots economy and their communities
That intolerance is just ugly
It's people like them, with their idiocy, that are causing absolute havoc north of the border. It's alright for you; you don't live here.
I assume you are a Scot and are aware you are referring to fellow Scots going back generations.
And from what I understand it is Sturgeon who is causing the havoc in failing health and education policies which have impacted badly on my family north of the border
They did not campaign specifically for indyref2 at Holyrood 2016 and thus have no mandate for it, especially as they lost their outright majority then anyway
It's almost heroic the amount of crap you spout on this subject from such a low knowledge base.
'We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
And there is no clear evidence independence has become the preferred option of most Scots even despite Brexit
Fuckin' hell, an inability to understand basic English, let alone Scottish politics.
'or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
Can I just clarify my position
If the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood 2021 then a referendum should take place probably in the Autumn of that year
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
Boris's approach to referendums is entirely consistent: they should only be granted when they further his career.
Scottish independence probably seals his second term. Irish Reunification even more so. It gets rid of 70ish opposition seats.
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
It's perfectly SNIP't you say?
Quite possibly, but to deny Scottish self determination on the issue is a contradiction. To vote against it in Sindyref3 is compatible.
It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
It's perfectly possible for someone to honestly believe that Brexit is good and Scottish independence is bad, wouldn't you say?
SNIPis compatible.
the people denying the Scots self determiniation are the SNP
SNIPnto the Government?
Its a not uncommon phenomenon, around the world, for pro-independence parties to get votes from people who then don't back actual independence.
It helps that they are the only credible centre left party in scotland. SLab are nowhere and LibDems are still a busted flush
r
You have members of your family who are thick.
I've heard that as much as 1/3 of SNP voters don't want indepedndance.
The mind really boggles at the idiocy that goes on on the north of the island.
Excuse me that is just wrong and unnecessary
Indeed these members of my family have contributed greatly to the Scots economy and their communities
That intolerance is just ugly
It's people like them, with their idiocy, that are causing absolute havoc north of the border. It's alright for you; you don't live here.
I assume you are a Scot and are aware you are referring to fellow Scots going back generations.
And from what I understand it is Sturgeon who is causing the havoc in failing health and education policies which have impacted badly on my family north of the border
I don't give a flying fuck about Nippy's incompetency. Idiots that vote for her on the other hand (While not even believing in independence?!?!?), I honestly don't have a lot of time for.
They did not campaign specifically for indyref2 at Holyrood 2016 and thus have no mandate for it, especially as they lost their outright majority then anyway
It's almost heroic the amount of crap you spout on this subject from such a low knowledge base.
'We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
And there is no clear evidence independence has become the preferred option of most Scots even despite Brexit
Fuckin' hell, an inability to understand basic English, let alone Scottish politics.
'or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
If in the unlikely event there is another referendum in Scotland ,then it will need to follow what Sturgeon tried to impose on Westminster.
Referendum 1 Leave or Remain
If Leave
Referendum 2 based on terms & conditions at the end of the separation negotiations.
They did not campaign specifically for indyref2 at Holyrood 2016 and thus have no mandate for it, especially as they lost their outright majority then anyway
It's almost heroic the amount of crap you spout on this subject from such a low knowledge base.
'We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
And there is no clear evidence independence has become the preferred option of most Scots even despite Brexit
Fuckin' hell, an inability to understand basic English, let alone Scottish politics.
'or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.'
If in the unlikely event there is another referendum in Scotland ,then it will need to follow what Sturgeon tried to impose on Westminster.
Referendum 1 Leave or Remain
If Leave
Referendum 2 based on terms & conditions at the end of the separation negotiations.
What goes around comes around.
I think that it is reasonable to have a discussion on Indy terms before a referendum, in order to avoid similar issues to the Brexit referendum.
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
Boris's approach to referendums is entirely consistent: they should only be granted when they further his career.
Scottish independence probably seals his second term. Irish Reunification even more so. It gets rid of 70ish opposition seats.
The departure of Scotland and Northern Ireland would increase Johnson's Parliamentary majority to 145, deprive Labour of the support of Scotland's dominant centre-left forever, and free up many billions of pounds currently sent north in transfer payments to be spent in England and Wales. It makes sense to keep the issue out of the way whilst we leave the EU and make a start on the future relationship - dealing with the consequences of one referendum at a time - but if the 2021 Scottish Parliament election results in another pro-independence majority then surely Johnson will be tempted on some level to give them what they want?
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
It should be noted their key policy had been rejected.
Johnson’s key policy is to implement a referendum result. Theirs is to overturn it.
That is a bit different.
That said, I agree the SNP have a strong case to push for a second Sindyref. I just don’t think they’ll get it for another three years.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
Not at all, the SNP were doing their best to block a referendum when it was 52% in favor of leaving the EU or had you forgotten that?
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
And how many will sign up now that Magic Grandpa has said to join again and vote for his favoured candidate?
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
1. Corbyn's gone, Momentum hasn't - and they're still as committed to the project tonight as they were at 9:59pm on Thursday 2. One strongly suspects that most of the active membership are far Left regardless. So many of the pre-2015 lot have already given up
A thought that occirs to me: the Conservatives have, I think, now improved their vote share in six successive elections. And their absolute number of votes, I think, in five. For the last three of these they were defending the record of a party in government, either solely or in coalition. This is fairly remarkable, no?
If - a big, but not a planet-sized if - Boris can be seen to be delivering on his promises without getting caught out with his trousers round his ankles or telling some absolute whoppers, then there is scope to materially increase that vote next time.
We undoubtedly lost votes of women of a certain age. My own theory is that many were women who had been on the wrong end of affairs and marriage break-ups - and Lothario Boris embodied all that hurt they had gone through at previou times in their lives. If he is on his best behaviour for five years....what am I saying? Boris - best beahviour - five years - same sentence?!? No, ignore me.....
Friday needs to be the day that he finally grows up. Maybe you could have a word in his ear?
Well done to Ben Stokes, just a bit overshadowed though!
Only the second cricketer to win since 1981 (the other being Flintoff). I was going to say ‘and the first to win for performances on PPV Tv,’ then I remembered that wasn’t correct.
I wonder if the ECB has cottoned on to that correlation yet...
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
And how many will sign up now that Magic Grandpa has said to join again and vote for his favoured candidate?
Like I have pointed out many times here, almost no party leader defeated in a GE gets to appoint their successor. Not Ed Miliband, not Gordon Brown, not Tony Blair, not Theresa May, not David Cameron, etc etc.
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
Looking forward to getting my £3 vote again, best ever investment.
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
Looking forward to getting my £3 vote again, best ever investment.
Corbyn won without the 3 bidders, and I think the registered supporters fee is now higher. I spent £3 supporting the lovely @LeicesterLiz.
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
Morally you make a point that I sympathise with. But in terms of practical politics Sturgeon needs a clear win for such a major constitutional change, which certainly requires a majority, and really a significant majority. She is better off waiting until things worsen to the point where she has that majority. And is therefore pushing the referendum now not because she wants one, but because she hopes Bozo’s refusal will help her along by offending Scottish pride.
Sturgeon is in a not dissimilar position to Farage used to be, in that her interests are best served by her life’s dream being thwarted. But not by the voters.
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
I hope the PLP stop her from standing, she will be awful
Given the Labour nomination rules, she requires the backing of only 21 MPs and Len McCluskey to make it onto the shortlist.
So, unless Unite alight upon and decide to back an even more left-wing candidate, she'll go to the membership vote and she'll win it.
Don't forget that nearly 40% voted for Owen Smith. Being anointed by the most disastrous party Leader since Ramsey MacDonald may not be a good endorsement!
1. 60% didn't 2. How many of the centre-leftists have since given up and walked away?
1) Will RLB get the same messiah like status as Jezza?
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
Looking forward to getting my £3 vote again, best ever investment.
Corbyn won without the 3 bidders, and I think the registered supporters fee is now higher. I spent £3 supporting the lovely @LeicesterLiz.
Didn’t he raise it to £25? Saved Labour from bankruptcy, as I recall.
Indeed, one cogent argument for a prompt leadership contest is it would raise a large sum of money which they probably need rather badly.
Scottish nationalist candidates were openly arguing this election for Lab and Lib Dem voters to "lend us your vote" and saying "we will not take it as support for independence" so it isn't really reasonable to tale this GE as a mandate for another referendum. If they want to do it at the next Scottish elections they must do it on an explicit mandate for it.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
Morally you make a point that I sympathise with. But in terms of practical politics Sturgeon needs a clear win for such a major constitutional change, which certainly requires a majority, and really a significant majority. She is better off waiting until things worsen to the point where she has that majority. And is therefore pushing the referendum now not because she wants one, but because she hopes Bozo’s refusal will help her along by offending Scottish pride.
Sturgeon is in a not dissimilar position to Farage used to be, in that her interests are best served by her life’s dream being thwarted. But not by the voters.
Bearing in mind the SNP was a 6-MP party until recently, I suspect all the long-term senior figures would genuinely prefer to achieve their ideals over careerism. Same for Farage. The opposite probably true for the LDs, who went in the other direction.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
Morally you make a point that I sympathise with. But in terms of practical politics Sturgeon needs a clear win for such a major constitutional change, which certainly requires a majority, and really a significant majority. She is better off waiting until things worsen to the point where she has that majority. And is therefore pushing the referendum now not because she wants one, but because she hopes Bozo’s refusal will help her along by offending Scottish pride.
Sturgeon is in a not dissimilar position to Farage used to be, in that her interests are best served by her life’s dream being thwarted. But not by the voters.
Yes and if the SNP fights and wins the next Scottish Parliament elections with a referendum as its key commitment, then I just can't see the Government refusing it. Nor should it. So we're looking at 2022, which although hardly a generation, is 8 years after the last one.
Was he odds on? Me and Ms Briskin discussed the matter earlier.
Anyway, we had argument, which got me thinking-
Are Men basically level 1 and Women level 2???
Ben Stokes could be backed at prices between 1/8 and 1/12, so yes, he was long odds-on but still paying better than the building society for a few hours' deposit.
I've no idea what is meant by level 1 and level 2 but I am reminded that one pb-er (no names, no pack drill) once opined that a certain public figure had thought he was an alpha mind but was really only a beta-plus. Said figure has a Nobel Prize. Your average lady sportsman has achieved a damn sight more than I am ever likely to.
I expect someone will have tipped Stokes at 25/1 back in the spring. It is usually the way with these things.
Was he odds on? Me and Ms Briskin discussed the matter earlier.
Anyway, we had argument, which got me thinking-
Are Men basically level 1 and Women level 2???
Ben Stokes could be backed at prices between 1/8 and 1/12, so yes, he was long odds-on but still paying better than the building society for a few hours' deposit.
I've no idea what is meant by level 1 and level 2 but I am reminded that one pb-er (no names, no pack drill) once opined that a certain public figure had thought he was an alpha mind but was really only a beta-plus. Said figure has a Nobel Prize. Your average lady sportsman has achieved a damn sight more than I am ever likely to.
I expect someone will have tipped Stokes at 25/1 back in the spring. It is usually the way with these things.
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
you wouldn't have PM Johnson if Parliament had accepted the referendum result. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
What does this have to do with literally anything?
We had an election, the circumstances in how we got there are irrelevant. The people voted, they voted for Johnson and the Tories and gave them a large majority. We are leaving.
This is a really very poor attempt to weasel out of your rank hypocrisy.
BTW, is this the referendum result Johnson himself voted against twice?
I think two things are true.
1) The SNP should get a second referendum - not off the back of this election but off the back of the last Hollyrood election. Powers to call them should be permanently devolved to the various assemblies.
2) It’s smart politics for the PM to refuse it, and allow the SNP to be impotent and gradually have its Gvt record catch up with it; just as it’s embroiled in scandal.
The PM will be morally wrong, but politically clever.
I agree with you on your first point. It should be up to the devolved assemblies whether or not they call a referendum.
I disagree entirely on your second point though. Refusing it is not smart at all. It will simply give more ammunition to the Independence movement so that when the referendum does eventually come - as it will - it is far more likely that Leave will win. It is a stupid and petty move to deny the referendum and Boris should know better.
I think it is finely poised and I can see your argument.
But it would be better if the PM just did as we both agree and devolved powers. I don’t understand anyone who wants to have a country stay in the Union against the will or it’s people. What’s the point? I’d like the Scots to choose to stay, but it should be a choice.
We chose in 2014.
Do you want a yearly ref on the matter?
If the SNP is power, that should be it’s right. I suspect the Scottish electorate would get bored and dump them if they did take the piss. Powers should be with assemblies.
I used to agree with this. And we had the Edinburgh agreement I accepted it.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
They said it too often.
No indyref2 this parliament.
Suck it up nationalist scum.
Scum 48 - Tories 6.
Strong words my friend. You don't want to be offending Scottish people, do you?
What’s the difference between the SNP winning a bigger proportion of seats and vote share in Scotland on a manifesto for a second indy Ref and Bozos alleged mandate to Get Brexit Done with a smaller vote share and smaller proportion of seats .
And you can’t argue that some people voting SNP didn’t want a second indy vote because then you can argue that some people voting Tory didn’t want to get Brexit done.
If the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 return a majority of SNP then I can’t see how sustainable it will be to refuse to grant the section 30 order .
Droning on about the will of the people south of the border and then ignoring it in Scotland looks totally hypocritical .
I think it would be sad to see the UK break up and that was one of my reasons for voting Remain but if we get to 2021 and the Scots vote for the SNP on a clear commitment for a second indy ref then I think it should be granted .
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Not destroyed in London by the Tories though. More likely by the LIbDems. So Johnson might not have won overall. Unfortunately though, the Brexit policy team were all from North London.
I expect the SNP will get another majority with the Greens, they did last time. Why will next time be different.
The latest Holyrood poll earlier this month had the SNP on 46% on the constituency vote, unchanged from last time but down on the regional list vote from 41.7% to just 37% with the Greens only up from 6.6% to 8%.
If the SNP and Greens thus lose their majority at Holyrood in 2021 they cannot claim a mandate for indyref2.
You and opinion polls again. Polls aren't facts. If the SNP and Greens lose their majority in 2021 they won't be able to claim a mandate I agree, but Labour are so weak that's extremely unlikely to occur. And the Lib Dems losing their Scottish election won't help that either.
In PR terms Labour will still get around 15% as most likely will the LDs, with the Tories on 25%+ that makes a Unionist majority
No way! That's 55%, why would they get so much?
2016 the proportions on the Regional List were SCON 22.9, SLAB 19.1 and SLD 5.2
Don't forget that 4.5% of the Regional vote last time went to tiny parties.
Tories 25, Labour 14, LDs 10 and BXP 2 is 49% combined not 51% as the BXP wouldn't hit the threshold to get any seats. UKIP got 2.0 in 2016 but got 0 seats from that.
That might be what they're polling but they likely won't get it on the night. Especially LDs who have a terrible track record at losing votes lately and have also lost their Scottish leader.
It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
I consider myself very well versed in Scots matters having lived and been associated with the Scots, Scotland and it's politics for nearly 70 years
Not doubting it, it's a shame you don't provide the same kind of analysis of Brexit
I am a remainer remember so brexit happening is the will of the people being respected for better or worse
If Scottish people keep electing the SNP by a landslide, will you accept their right to a referendum or do you just pick and choose the results you like?
If they elect a Scottish SNP majority government in a landslide in 2021 then yes they should have a referendum
Last thursday the SNP achieved 45% so not a majority vote
They will however lose it
So it is about picking results you like. The majority of people voted for pro-Remain/pro second ref parties in the election - but I'm not going to sit here and argue we should Remain in the EU or have another referendum.
The hypocrisy just shines through I'm afraid.
Whatever if it keeps you happy
I can only agree the Scots should have a referendum in late 2021 if they win Holyrood
I think you have far more serious problems in trying to prevent the extinction of the labour party
You're just a hypocrite, end of story.
I am trying to stop the extinction of Labour, I am taking action on it - but your pathetic whataboutism is telling.
Why?
What is there about Labour that is worth saving? I genuinely think that is the question @Cyclefree is asking. Is it fit for purpose?
I think that we need a credible centre left party that gives people a choice. That is as focused on inequality as growth. That recognises the threads that hold our society together. That is more tolerant of failure and the need for second or even third chances. That speaks up for the minorities who would otherwise be dominated and at times exploited by the majority. That makes the case for equality of opportunity not being enough.
I am not sure we currently have such a party. I am not sure when we will.
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Losing London seats to the LibDems would have been better than losing northern seats to the Tories.
Was he odds on? Me and Ms Briskin discussed the matter earlier.
Anyway, we had argument, which got me thinking-
Are Men basically level 1 and Women level 2???
Ben Stokes could be backed at prices between 1/8 and 1/12, so yes, he was long odds-on but still paying better than the building society for a few hours' deposit.
I've no idea what is meant by level 1 and level 2 but I am reminded that one pb-er (no names, no pack drill) once opined that a certain public figure had thought he was an alpha mind but was really only a beta-plus. Said figure has a Nobel Prize. Your average lady sportsman has achieved a damn sight more than I am ever likely to.
I expect someone will have tipped Stokes at 25/1 back in the spring. It is usually the way with these things.
Level 1, 2 is used in poker parlance.
Level 1 is understanding the game and using tactics.
Level 2 is understanding the game, using tactics, and understanding that your opponent may be using tactics.
Level 3 is understanding the game, using tactics, understanding your opponent is using tactics, and using tactics utilsiling the knowledge that your opponent is using tactics.
Level 4 and on and on.
It's something like that.
Thanks for quoting the Stokes price - I wouldn't have taken him at that odds.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
SNP's "key policy" isn't one their legislature has the power to implement though, as twice confirmed at a referendum.
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Losing London seats to the LibDems would have been better than losing northern seats to the Tories.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
No it is not as the Tories are in government with a majority at Westminster, not the SNP. The SNP are only in government at Holyrood
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Losing London seats to the LibDems would have been better than losing northern seats to the Tories.
It isn't if your name is Emily Thornberry or Keir Starmer
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Not destroyed in London by the Tories though. More likely by the LIbDems. So Johnson might not have won overall. Unfortunately though, the Brexit policy team were all from North London.
I can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable anyway though. At worst Johnson would have stayed still and relied on the DUP again, I can't see him making a net loss in that scenario as the seats Labour had would be swapping to the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems weren't taking Tory seats, which in that scenario is what they would have needed to do to stop a Tory victory.
It's strange to see people stick their fingers in their ears about Brexit and its many downsides but then become experts on Scottish Independence and how bad it will be
I consider myself very well versed in Scots matters having lived and been associated with the Scots, Scotland and it's politics for nearly 70 years
Not doubting it, it's a shame you don't provide the same kind of analysis of Brexit
I am a remainer remember so brexit happening is the will of the people being respected for better or worse
If Scottish people keep electing the SNP by a landslide, will you accept their right to a referendum or do you just pick and choose the results you like?
SNIP
Last thursday the SNP achieved 45% so not a majority vote
They will however lose it
So it is about picking results you like. The majority of people voted for pro-SNIP
The hypocrisy just shines through I'm afraid.
Whatever if it keeps you happy
I can only agree the Scots should have a referendum in late 2021 if they win Holyrood
I think you have far more serious problems in trying to prevent the extinction of the labour party
You're just a hypocrite, end of story.
I am trying to stop the extinction of Labour, I am taking action on it - but your pathetic whataboutism is telling.
Why?
What is there about Labour that is worth saving? I genuinely think that is the question @Cyclefree is asking. Is it fit for purpose?
I think that we need a credible centre left party that gives people a choice. That is as focused on inequality as growth. That recognises the threads that hold our society together. That is more tolerant of failure and the need for second or even third chances. That speaks up for the minorities who would otherwise be dominated and at times exploited by the majority. That makes the case for equality of opportunity not being enough.
I am not sure we currently have such a party. I am not sure when we will.
Cyclefree and Meeks should really be clear about who they back. All the rest of them have. For reference-
Smithson - LD TSE - Tory (although not anymore) Herdson - Tory (although not anymore)
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
SNP's "key policy" isn't one their legislature has the power to implement though, as twice confirmed at a referendum.
By key policy, I mean another independence referendum. Not just implementing it off the back of an election result.
Belated congratulations to HYUFD & RCS for their excellent GE forecasts, unbelievably accurate.
Thanks, though RCS was I think even more of a Mystic Megg than I was, I expected a Tory majority of about 20-40 rather than 80, RCS forecast Labour under 200 seats, which was close to the final result, though Labour did a shade better to get to 202
I expect the SNP will get another majority with the Greens, they did last time. Why will next time be different.
The latest Holyrood poll earlier this month had the SNP on 46% on the constituency vote, unchanged from last time but down on the regional list vote from 41.7% to just 37% with the Greens only up from 6.6% to 8%.
If the SNP and Greens thus lose their majority at Holyrood in 2021 they cannot claim a mandate for indyref2.
You and opinion polls again. Polls aren't facts. If the SNP and Greens lose their majority in 2021 they won't be able to claim a mandate I agree, but Labour are so weak that's extremely unlikely to occur. And the Lib Dems losing their Scottish election won't help that either.
In PR terms Labour will still get around 15% as most likely will the LDs, with the Tories on 25%+ that makes a Unionist majority
No way! That's 55%, why would they get so much?
2016 the proportions on the Regional List were SCON 22.9, SLAB 19.1 and SLD 5.2
Don't forget that 4.5% of the Regional vote last time went to tiny parties.
Tories 25, Labour 14, LDs 10 and BXP 2 is 49% combined not 51% as the BXP wouldn't hit the threshold to get any seats. UKIP got 2.0 in 2016 but got 0 seats from that.
That might be what they're polling but they likely won't get it on the night. Especially LDs who have a terrible track record at losing votes lately and have also lost their Scottish leader.
Even 49% is still 4% more than the 45% projected for the SNP and Greens
Belated congratulations to HYUFD & RCS for their excellent GE forecasts, unbelievably accurate.
Thanks, though RCS was I think even more of a Mystic Megg than I was, I expected a Tory majority of about 20-40 rather than 80, RCS forecast Labour under 200 seats, which was close to the final result, though Labour did a shade better to get to 202
I got the Con forecast pretty much spot on, but thought the LDs would get 15-19 seats, rather than their eventual 11. I also missed just how well the SNP would do in Scotland, going for 45 seats.
Overall, though, my forecast wasn't bad. Still room for improvement, mind.
Now comes the hard work for the government. I wish them all the best.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
SNP's "key policy" isn't one their legislature has the power to implement though, as twice confirmed at a referendum.
By key policy, I mean another independence referendum. Not just implementing it off the back of an election result.
I know.
Their legislature does not have the power to implement an independence referendum.
Last thursday the SNP achieved 45% so not a majority vote
They will however lose it
So it is about picking results you like. The majority of people voted for pro-SNIP
The hypocrisy just shines through I'm afraid.
Whatever if it keeps you happy
I can only agree the Scots should have a referendum in late 2021 if they win Holyrood
I think you have far more serious problems in trying to prevent the extinction of the labour party
You're just a hypocrite, end of story.
I am trying to stop the extinction of Labour, I am taking action on it - but your pathetic whataboutism is telling.
Why?
What is there about Labour that is worth saving? I genuinely think that is the question @Cyclefree is asking. Is it fit for purpose?
I think that we need a credible centre left party that gives people a choice. That is as focused on inequality as growth. That recognises the threads that hold our society together. That is more tolerant of failure and the need for second or even third chances. That speaks up for the minorities who would otherwise be dominated and at times exploited by the majority. That makes the case for equality of opportunity not being enough.
I am not sure we currently have such a party. I am not sure when we will.
Cyclefree and Meeks should really be clear about who they back. All the rest of them have. For reference-
Smithson - LD TSE - Tory (although not anymore) Herdson - Tory (although not anymore)
Not sure you make a compelling case there. 2 exceptions from 3. I don’t think it’s that important. Chat beneath the line here is hardly inhibited by the thread headers.
I am a Tory but I don’t think that government works if it is not challenged and held to account. The last Parliament was undoubtedly the worst in my lifetime. No effective government, a significant proportion who lied to get elected (many of them thankfully paying the price) and no effective opposition. Just a total shambles.
Utterly ridiculous to argue that the SNP need to get a majority in a PR legislature to implement their key policy, yet the Tories can implement theirs on a FPTP majority of 45% of the vote. Especially when the SNP won a majority in Scotland at Westminster.
SNP's "key policy" isn't one their legislature has the power to implement though, as twice confirmed at a referendum.
By key policy, I mean another independence referendum. Not just implementing it off the back of an election result.
I know.
Their legislature does not have the power to implement an independence referendum.
Belated congratulations to HYUFD & RCS for their excellent GE forecasts, unbelievably accurate.
Thanks, though RCS was I think even more of a Mystic Megg than I was, I expected a Tory majority of about 20-40 rather than 80, RCS forecast Labour under 200 seats, which was close to the final result, though Labour did a shade better to get to 202
I got the Con forecast pretty much spot on, but thought the LDs would get 15-19 seats, rather than their eventual 11. I also missed just how well the SNP would do in Scotland, going for 45 seats.
Overall, though, my forecast wasn't bad. Still room for improvement, mind.
Now comes the hard work for the government. I wish them all the best.
Still, I think you made the best forecast of anyone here.
Yes, now 5 years of hard slog in government begins
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Last thursday the SNP achieved 45% so not a majority vote
They will however lose it
So it is about picking results you like. The majority of people voted for pro-SNIP
The hypocrisy just shines through I'm afraid.
Whatever if it keeps you happy
I can only agree the Scots should have a referendum in late 2021 if they win Holyrood
I think you have far more serious problems in trying to prevent the extinction of the labour party
You're just a hypocrite, end of story.
I am trying to stop the extinction of Labour, I am taking action on it - but your pathetic whataboutism is telling.
Why?
What is there about Labour that is worth saving? I genuinely think that is the question @Cyclefree is asking. Is it fit for purpose?
I think that we need a credible centre left party that gives people a choice. That is as focused on inequality as growth. That recognises the threads that hold our society together. That is more tolerant of failure and the need for second or even third chances. That speaks up for the minorities who would otherwise be dominated and at times exploited by the majority. That makes the case for equality of opportunity not being enough.
I am not sure we currently have such a party. I am not sure when we will.
Cyclefree and Meeks should really be clear about who they back. All the rest of them have. For reference-
Smithson - LD TSE - Tory (although not anymore) Herdson - Tory (although not anymore)
Not sure you make a compelling case there. 2 exceptions from 3. I don’t think it’s that important. Chat beneath the line here is hardly inhibited by the thread headers.
I am a Tory but I don’t think that government works if it is not challenged and held to account. The last Parliament was undoubtedly the worst in my lifetime. No effective government, a significant proportion who lied to get elected (many of them thankfully paying the price) and no effective opposition. Just a total shambles.
I think Smithson Jnr is an anarchist?
I don't give a shit who Meeks votes for but I think Cyclefree, with her holier than thou stance, should starting making it clear.
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Not destroyed in London by the Tories though. More likely by the LIbDems. So Johnson might not have won overall. Unfortunately though, the Brexit policy team were all from North London.
Labour's policy -- renegotiation and a new referendum with the government's position to be decided later -- was the best compromise but Corbyn did not have the wit to keep the plates spinning when attacked by Boris & Co. It did not occur to him to point out this had been the Conservatives' position.
One trouble with Corbyn is that he really was uninterested in things that did not interest him. It was not an act. And one of those things happened to be the major political conflict of the day.
In addition, Corbyn seemed to have been off his feed for the past year or so. He looked to have aged at least 10 years since the 2017 election. Even had Labour won, it would not have surprised me to see him step down within a year or so.
Boris's victory was not, I think, inevitable, though I should not have started from here.
There was a time when the conventional wisdom was that General Election campaigns created a lot of heat, but at the end of the day changed very little. Labour would do well to remember that when arguing about the reasons for their defeat.
There was no good position they could have adopted on Brexit in the context of the General Election campaign. But that is not to say that a different Brexit/EU strategy might not have ultimately produced different results if adopted clearly, consistently at from a much earlier stage.
As it is they have been arguing and changing their position every couple of weeks for over 3 years, and have never had anything like a united position over that time.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Nearly 90 peers from the main political parties are calling for Baroness Tonge to apologise for claiming that the Tories won the general election due to Israeli attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Not destroyed in London by the Tories though. More likely by the LIbDems. So Johnson might not have won overall. Unfortunately though, the Brexit policy team were all from North London.
Labour's policy -- renegotiation and a new referendum with the government's position to be decided later -- was the best compromise but Corbyn did not have the wit to keep the plates spinning when attacked by Boris & Co. It did not occur to him to point out this had been the Conservatives' position.
One trouble with Corbyn is that he really was uninterested in things that did not interest him. It was not an act. And one of those things happened to be the major political conflict of the day.
In addition, Corbyn seemed to have been off his feed for the past year or so. He looked to have aged at least 10 years since the 2017 election. Even had Labour won, it would not have surprised me to see him step down within a year or so.
Boris's victory was not, I think, inevitable, though I should not have started from here.
The Johnson victory at the level it was, was almost certainly the result of a massive Labour failure. The Tories basically stood still overall, Labour lost 3 million votes.
Corbyn should have stepped down in 2017 on a high and we probably would not have been in this mess. Or they should have backed May's deal as the Labour Leave MPs advised them to do.
But that has to be down to poor leadership, that Corbyn could not stick to his guns and take action.
Labour were actually very lucky at the election, because during the campaign there was a swing of about 5% from the LDs to Labour due to the ineptness of the LD campaign. Without that swing, the result would have been something like Con 43%, Lab 28%, LD 17%, and Labour would probably have won fewer than 170 seats.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
To the Lib Dems surely, hence Labour polling 20% after the EU Elections.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
Labour were actually very lucky at the election, because during the campaign there was a swing of about 5% from the LDs to Labour due to the ineptness of the LD campaign. Without that swing, the result would have been something like Con 43%, Lab 28%, LD 17%, and Labour would probably have won fewer than 170 seats.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
To the Lib Dems surely, hence Labour polling 20% after the EU Elections.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
And in how many southern seats would even quite large numbers of Labour voters switching to the Liberal Democrats have made a difference? Hint - not many.
While they had a dilemma, they made the wrong choice. In fact, ironically, they took the wrong set of voters for granted,
Serious question: if Labour had a better leader and had backed Leaving, wouldn't it have been utterly destroyed in London and the South?
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
Not destroyed in London by the Tories though. More likely by the LIbDems. So Johnson might not have won overall. Unfortunately though, the Brexit policy team were all from North London.
In addition, Corbyn seemed to have been off his feed for the past year or so. He looked to have aged at least 10 years since the 2017 election. Even had Labour won, it would not have surprised me to see him step down within a year or so.
Yes, I think the same.
Corbyn has looked tired, listless & unhappy for some time.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
To the Lib Dems surely, hence Labour polling 20% after the EU Elections.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
And in how many southern seats would even quite large numbers of Labour voters switching to the Liberal Democrats have made a difference? Hint - not many.
While they had a dilemma, they made the wrong choice. In fact, ironically, they took the wrong set of voters for granted,
They decided to listen to the EU election results. Of course, they should have looked at the BXP vote as opposed to the Lib Dem vote.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
I agree and maintain that because of their socialist principles they would have held the vast majority of remain seats in University towns and London with a soft Brexit policy. Yes a few seats would have gone yellow but it is better to lose seats to a potential coalition partner than lots to the Tories. They were between a rock and a hard place but because the leadership wanted to ensure their own bacon was saved in their London seats they screwed over the traditional heartlands and became a party that was not just too Remain but also too dictated by London politics for many in the North and Midlands to stomach.
Labour were actually very lucky at the election, because during the campaign there was a swing of about 5% from the LDs to Labour due to the ineptness of the LD campaign. Without that swing, the result would have been something like Con 43%, Lab 28%, LD 17%, and Labour would probably have won fewer than 170 seats.
There's always next time
Glad you made it tonight Byronic - I've got a question to ask you (and others please feel free to join in)
So you posted about Tarot one time (and framed it as a maths puzzle, very clever)
So, my GF is "New Age" and I want to buy her an astrology book for xmas.
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
To the Lib Dems surely, hence Labour polling 20% after the EU Elections.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
One of the things I found genuinely annoying on election night was the belated dropping of that coin in many quarters. Voting down May’s deal was both stupid and undemocratic. They ultimately paid a heavy price and they deserved to.
Cyclefree and Meeks should really be clear about who they back. All the rest of them have. For reference-
Smithson - LD TSE - Tory (although not anymore) Herdson - Tory (although not anymore)
To be honest, the only people who should say who they voted for are those who work for or assist unpaid a political party. The rest, if they have any honour, will politely tell you to do one. I don't even discuss it with my family even when it's bloody obvious - which was the source of some awkwardness this weekend.
Is this going to be a PB Tory meme going forward? They just spent a month crapping themselves in fear but now they've won it's like seeing little PBHitlers hatching. Perhaps less telling people what to do, yes?
Re Labour, forget Corbyn for a second, and just think Brexit.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
Really? Where would Labour Remainers have gone? If to the Liberal Democrats it would not likely have lost Labour seats. If to the Tories we could have been fairly sure they were either not Remainers or not Labour.
Labour Leavers, however...
To the Lib Dems surely, hence Labour polling 20% after the EU Elections.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
One of the things I found genuinely annoying on election night was the belated dropping of that coin in many quarters. Voting down May’s deal was both stupid and undemocratic. They ultimately paid a heavy price and they deserved to.
It could also be pointed out that May's deal allowed a potential route back into the EU, that what will now emerge almost certainly won't. Not saying that it would have been likely to happen, but the drift away from the EU would have been far slower.
And also a significant possibility of a Tory civil war leading to an election and Labour victory negotiating the future EU relationship.
I've been reading a Guardian piece on the start of the Labour leadership race/civil war and came across the following nugget:
The Fabian Society, the socialist society and thinktank, warned that to win a majority at the next election Labour needs to gain 123 seats, almost twice as many as it required at the 2019 election.
It highlighted the scale of the challenge facing the new leader, saying that to secure the “winning post” marginal seat Labour now needs an electoral swing of 10.3 percentage points, almost three times more than the swing it needed to win the 2019 election.
A 10.3% swing, which is what the Fabians have calculated is required for an absolute Labour majority of 2, is approximately equal to that achieved in the 1997 Blair landslide when Labour won a majority of 179 and reduced the Tories to a rump.
But it gets worse for them: the list of target seats running from 1 to 123 includes sixteen seats controlled by the SNP. As was pointed out in discussions earlier today, for every Scottish seat Labour can't wrest back it has to go further and further down the English and Welsh list - running into an increasing variety of theoretically possible but highly implausible targets as it goes, such as Colchester (target 104, last represented by Labour in 1945,) Finchley and Golders Green (target 117, no further explanation needed,) Bournemouth West (target 132, Tory since its creation in 1950,) Ceredigion (target 135, a Plaid/LD battleground that last returned a Labour MP in 1970,) Hexham (target 137, the only Tory seat in the North-East to survive in 1997, never returned a Labour MP,) Bromley and Chislehurst (target 140, Bromley having been Tory continuously since 1918,) and Basingstoke (target 148, never won by Labour in a history going back to 1885.)
Provided that Boris Johnson doesn't turn out to be heroically and, indeed, unprecedentedly useless, I'm satisfied that a majority Marxist Government come 2024 is somewhat unlikely - whatever nutcase the Labour membership ends up endorsing next Spring.
Labour were actually very lucky at the election, because during the campaign there was a swing of about 5% from the LDs to Labour due to the ineptness of the LD campaign. Without that swing, the result would have been something like Con 43%, Lab 28%, LD 17%, and Labour would probably have won fewer than 170 seats.
There's always next time
Glad you made it tonight Byronic - I've got a question to ask you (and others please feel free to join in)
So you posted about Tarot one time (and framed it as a maths puzzle, very clever)
So, my GF is "New Age" and I want to buy her an astrology book for xmas.
I've been reading a Guardian piece on the start of the Labour leadership race/civil war and came across the following nugget:
The Fabian Society, the socialist society and thinktank, warned that to win a majority at the next election Labour needs to gain 123 seats, almost twice as many as it required at the 2019 election.
It highlighted the scale of the challenge facing the new leader, saying that to secure the “winning post” marginal seat Labour now needs an electoral swing of 10.3 percentage points, almost three times more than the swing it needed to win the 2019 election.
A 10.3% swing, which is what the Fabians have calculated is required for an absolute Labour majority of 2, is approximately equal to that achieved in the 1997 Blair landslide when Labour won a majority of 179 and reduced the Tories to a rump.
But it gets worse for them: the list of target seats running from 1 to 123 includes sixteen seats controlled by the SNP. As was pointed out in discussions earlier today, for every Scottish seat Labour can't wrest back it has to go further and further down the English and Welsh list - running into an increasing variety of theoretically possible but highly implausible targets as it goes, such as Colchester (target 104, last represented by Labour in 1945,) Finchley and Golders Green (target 117, no further explanation needed,) Bournemouth West (target 132, Tory since its creation in 1950,) Ceredigion (target 135, a Plaid/LD battleground that last returned a Labour MP in 1970,) Hexham (target 137, the only Tory seat in the North-East to survive in 1997, never returned a Labour MP,) Bromley and Chislehurst (target 140, Bromley having been Tory continuously since 1918,) and Basingstoke (target 148, never won by Labour in a history going back to 1885.)
Provided that Boris Johnson doesn't turn out to be heroically and, indeed, unprecedentedly useless, I'm satisfied that a majority Marxist Government come 2024 is somewhat unlikely - whatever nutcase the Labour membership ends up endorsing next Spring.
Although, in the slim chance it's not a nutcase, a Labour minority Government on around 60 gains + the Lib Dems getting even some of their 100 targets, does allow a minority Government to appear. It's really Johnson's to screw up if Labour cocks it up again.
I have to laugh at Basingstoke ever going Labour though, no chance.
Labour were actually very lucky at the election, because during the campaign there was a swing of about 5% from the LDs to Labour due to the ineptness of the LD campaign. Without that swing, the result would have been something like Con 43%, Lab 28%, LD 17%, and Labour would probably have won fewer than 170 seats.
There's always next time
Glad you made it tonight Byronic - I've got a question to ask you (and others please feel free to join in)
So you posted about Tarot one time (and framed it as a maths puzzle, very clever)
So, my GF is "New Age" and I want to buy her an astrology book for xmas.
Comments
And from what I understand it is Sturgeon who is causing the havoc in failing health and education policies which have impacted badly on my family north of the border
2) How many 3 quid Trots have lapsed?
If in the unlikely event there is another referendum in Scotland ,then it will need to follow what Sturgeon tried to impose on Westminster.
Referendum 1 Leave or Remain
If Leave
Referendum 2 based on terms & conditions at the end of the separation negotiations.
What goes around comes around.
But during the campaign they just couldn't stop themselves from bleating that it was a "once in a generation chance"
They said it too often.
No indyref2 this parliament.
Suck it up nationalist scum.
Johnson’s key policy is to implement a referendum result. Theirs is to overturn it.
That is a bit different.
That said, I agree the SNP have a strong case to push for a second Sindyref. I just don’t think they’ll get it for another three years.
One Happy Island
2. One strongly suspects that most of the active membership are far Left regardless. So many of the pre-2015 lot have already given up
I wonder if the ECB has cottoned on to that correlation yet...
2014
2015
2016
2017
2019
2021/2?
Was he odds on? Me and Ms Briskin discussed the matter earlier.
Anyway, we had argument, which got me thinking-
Are Men basically level 1 and Women level 2???
Looking forward to getting my £3 vote again, best ever investment.
Instead of being another 2017 it turned out to be another 1987. Tory nerves jangling throughout despite solid poll leads.
Sturgeon is in a not dissimilar position to Farage used to be, in that her interests are best served by her life’s dream being thwarted. But not by the voters.
Indeed, one cogent argument for a prompt leadership contest is it would raise a large sum of money which they probably need rather badly.
I've no idea what is meant by level 1 and level 2 but I am reminded that one pb-er (no names, no pack drill) once opined that a certain public figure had thought he was an alpha mind but was really only a beta-plus. Said figure has a Nobel Prize. Your average lady sportsman has achieved a damn sight more than I am ever likely to.
I expect someone will have tipped Stokes at 25/1 back in the spring. It is usually the way with these things.
I'm not doubting they would have done a lot less badly with a leader much better than Corbyn but I just can't see how a Johnson victory wasn't inevitable in hindsight.
And you can’t argue that some people voting SNP didn’t want a second indy vote because then you can argue that some people voting Tory didn’t want to get Brexit done.
If the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 return a majority of SNP then I can’t see how sustainable it will be to refuse to grant the section 30 order .
Droning on about the will of the people south of the border and then ignoring it in Scotland looks totally hypocritical .
I think it would be sad to see the UK break up and that was one of my reasons for voting Remain but if we get to 2021 and the Scots vote for the SNP on a clear commitment for a second indy ref then I think it should be granted .
That might be what they're polling but they likely won't get it on the night. Especially LDs who have a terrible track record at losing votes lately and have also lost their Scottish leader.
What is there about Labour that is worth saving? I genuinely think that is the question @Cyclefree is asking. Is it fit for purpose?
I think that we need a credible centre left party that gives people a choice. That is as focused on inequality as growth. That recognises the threads that hold our society together. That is more tolerant of failure and the need for second or even third chances. That speaks up for the minorities who would otherwise be dominated and at times exploited by the majority. That makes the case for equality of opportunity not being enough.
I am not sure we currently have such a party. I am not sure when we will.
Level 1 is understanding the game and using tactics.
Level 2 is understanding the game, using tactics, and understanding that your opponent may be using tactics.
Level 3 is understanding the game, using tactics, understanding your opponent is using tactics, and using tactics utilsiling the knowledge that your opponent is using tactics.
Level 4 and on and on.
It's something like that.
Thanks for quoting the Stokes price - I wouldn't have taken him at that odds.
The Lib Dems weren't taking Tory seats, which in that scenario is what they would have needed to do to stop a Tory victory.
Smithson - LD
TSE - Tory (although not anymore)
Herdson - Tory (although not anymore)
https://www.twitter.com/bbcmtd/status/1205303332836904960
Overall, though, my forecast wasn't bad. Still room for improvement, mind.
Now comes the hard work for the government. I wish them all the best.
Their legislature does not have the power to implement an independence referendum.
I am a Tory but I don’t think that government works if it is not challenged and held to account. The last Parliament was undoubtedly the worst in my lifetime. No effective government, a significant proportion who lied to get elected (many of them thankfully paying the price) and no effective opposition. Just a total shambles.
I guess it's Civil War time.
All agreed?
Yes, now 5 years of hard slog in government begins
Y Doethur - none of the useless fuckers.*
*I am aware Corbyn and Johnson both have a reputation as outstanding and prolific fuckers. That doesn’t alter the general thrust of my comment.
There was no easy way out for them, because their seats fell into two broad groups: Remainiac City Centres and University towns, and Leaverstan towns in the North and North West of the country.
If the Labour Party had had a policy of "Brexit, but not a Tory Brexit", they might have held up in Leaverstan. But they would have lost in London, Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and the like. They were faced with an unenviable choice, disappoint one group of supporters or the other. Wholeheartedly backing Brexit might have saved Leigh in Manchester or Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it would have lost them another bunch of seats.
I don't give a shit who Meeks votes for but I think Cyclefree, with her holier than thou stance, should starting making it clear.
One trouble with Corbyn is that he really was uninterested in things that did not interest him. It was not an act. And one of those things happened to be the major political conflict of the day.
In addition, Corbyn seemed to have been off his feed for the past year or so. He looked to have aged at least 10 years since the 2017 election. Even had Labour won, it would not have surprised me to see him step down within a year or so.
Boris's victory was not, I think, inevitable, though I should not have started from here.
There was no good position they could have adopted on Brexit in the context of the General Election campaign. But that is not to say that a different Brexit/EU strategy might not have ultimately produced different results if adopted clearly, consistently at from a much earlier stage.
As it is they have been arguing and changing their position every couple of weeks for over 3 years, and have never had anything like a united position over that time.
Labour Leavers, however...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/15/ninety-peers-call-baroness-tonge-issue-unqualified-apology-blaming/
I know she has previous but this is nuts
Nearly 90 peers from the main political parties are calling for Baroness Tonge to apologise for claiming that the Tories won the general election due to Israeli attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn should have stepped down in 2017 on a high and we probably would not have been in this mess. Or they should have backed May's deal as the Labour Leave MPs advised them to do.
But that has to be down to poor leadership, that Corbyn could not stick to his guns and take action.
Labour was in an impossible place, just made so much worse by Corbyn being crap.
The best thing would have been to avoid the election altogether and voted for May's deal.
While they had a dilemma, they made the wrong choice. In fact, ironically, they took the wrong set of voters for granted,
Corbyn has looked tired, listless & unhappy for some time.
They were between a rock and a hard place but because the leadership wanted to ensure their own bacon was saved in their London seats they screwed over the traditional heartlands and became a party that was not just too Remain but also too dictated by London politics for many in the North and Midlands to stomach.
So you posted about Tarot one time (and framed it as a maths puzzle, very clever)
So, my GF is "New Age" and I want to buy her an astrology book for xmas.
I wondered if anyone had any recommendations????
Is this going to be a PB Tory meme going forward? They just spent a month crapping themselves in fear but now they've won it's like seeing little PBHitlers hatching. Perhaps less telling people what to do, yes?
https://twitter.com/blue_labour/status/1206286740362805248
And also a significant possibility of a Tory civil war leading to an election and Labour victory negotiating the future EU relationship.
The Fabian Society, the socialist society and thinktank, warned that to win a majority at the next election Labour needs to gain 123 seats, almost twice as many as it required at the 2019 election.
It highlighted the scale of the challenge facing the new leader, saying that to secure the “winning post” marginal seat Labour now needs an electoral swing of 10.3 percentage points, almost three times more than the swing it needed to win the 2019 election.
A 10.3% swing, which is what the Fabians have calculated is required for an absolute Labour majority of 2, is approximately equal to that achieved in the 1997 Blair landslide when Labour won a majority of 179 and reduced the Tories to a rump.
But it gets worse for them: the list of target seats running from 1 to 123 includes sixteen seats controlled by the SNP. As was pointed out in discussions earlier today, for every Scottish seat Labour can't wrest back it has to go further and further down the English and Welsh list - running into an increasing variety of theoretically possible but highly implausible targets as it goes, such as Colchester (target 104, last represented by Labour in 1945,) Finchley and Golders Green (target 117, no further explanation needed,) Bournemouth West (target 132, Tory since its creation in 1950,) Ceredigion (target 135, a Plaid/LD battleground that last returned a Labour MP in 1970,) Hexham (target 137, the only Tory seat in the North-East to survive in 1997, never returned a Labour MP,) Bromley and Chislehurst (target 140, Bromley having been Tory continuously since 1918,) and Basingstoke (target 148, never won by Labour in a history going back to 1885.)
Provided that Boris Johnson doesn't turn out to be heroically and, indeed, unprecedentedly useless, I'm satisfied that a majority Marxist Government come 2024 is somewhat unlikely - whatever nutcase the Labour membership ends up endorsing next Spring.
I have to laugh at Basingstoke ever going Labour though, no chance.