I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson. And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.
The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.
That’s the thing.
The media keeps saying he’s the de facto PM. But he’s not. He’s an influential adviser but not the PM.
Surely the perception is what counts and the whole Cummings affair has cemented the notion that he his the one actually running things. I don't believe it is very wide of the mark either.
Johnson was born into privilege and has sailed through life with a combination of charm, lies, waffle and blagging. He has never done a hard day's work hard in his life. He's just the front man.
And that’s exactly my issue
The media continues to repeat an untruth for a combination of personal dislike and commercial reasons
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it
You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
So if you were a pro-independence Scot you'd accept the situation and turn your thoughts elsewhere, reasonably happily?
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.
To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.
If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.
Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.
Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.
Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?
1) Labour cannot win in England. 2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win. 3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.
Labour evolves to come up with a proposition that can secure a majority of English seats
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Ignore HYUFD.
He is a zealot with no common sense
HYUFD often talks sense, but only when the blinkers are off!
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
I am very keen not to lose money betting on the Presidential election again. Especially after I had done so welling backing trump to win the nomination in 2016.
I want to hear solid reasons as to why Trump can win beyond "the polls are wrong" without any evidence as to why the polls are wrong.
Every incidence of left wingers doing something in America is immediatly greeted with the notion that it playing I to his hands, every poll showing that actually the action is popular with the American public is dismissed.
But the polls weren't really wrong in 2016, they got the voteshares pretty much spot on didn't they, nationally?
Biden is so much further ahead, they'd have to do worse than 2016 (where they were mostly right as I said) and be so wrong as to probably be useless in future. Can't see it myself.
I think we're all in a state of "well it happened last time, it will surely happen again". Putting my objective (as much as possible) hat on, Trump simply does not have the advantages he had last time.
Yes. Forget all this "people are being emotional" bullshit, the bias is working the other way, both on here and in the betting markets. Because there was a shock last time people are treating the best objective data - the polling - as if it's more likely to be way out than broadly right. Exactly the same occurred - and for the same reason - with our general election. There the evidence from the get-go was for a big Tory win and this remained the case right until polling day. Yet you could back this outcome even on the eve of the vote at generous odds against. It happened of course. Big Tory win. The polls were right. Back to WH2020. If you were to decant every drop of emotion you had into a jar and focus on pricing up a Trump win in the way a cold calculating killer does as he plots his next hit - think Edward Fox in The Jackal - going purely by the hard evidence available in the public domain, you would get in Betfair parlance 4.25. I know this because I have done it. 4.25 - this is what Trump should be right now. But he's 2.84. Far too short. Too short in the market and (driven by the same bias) too many PB posters still giving him a great chance and expecting it to be close.
Have you priced in the effect of Trump working to prevent the election from being free and fair?
Yes. Also the "time risk" - 4 months to polling day is quite a long time. You could argue me down to 3.75 but no further. My main point is that an objective assessment indicates Trump's chances to win are being overstated not understated by most people. Nobody can be 100% objective, of course, but you get my drift.
I am very keen not to lose money betting on the Presidential election again. Especially after I had done so welling backing trump to win the nomination in 2016.
I want to hear solid reasons as to why Trump can win beyond "the polls are wrong" without any evidence as to why the polls are wrong.
Every incidence of left wingers doing something in America is immediatly greeted with the notion that it playing I to his hands, every poll showing that actually the action is popular with the American public is dismissed.
But the polls weren't really wrong in 2016, they got the voteshares pretty much spot on didn't they, nationally?
Biden is so much further ahead, they'd have to do worse than 2016 (where they were mostly right as I said) and be so wrong as to probably be useless in future. Can't see it myself.
I think we're all in a state of "well it happened last time, it will surely happen again". Putting my objective (as much as possible) hat on, Trump simply does not have the advantages he had last time.
The national polling was fine but the rust belt polling left something to be desired.
Intuitively it would seem easier to poll a state more accurately than the US as whole. This clearly doesn't seem to be the case and I am sure someone will come along shortly to explain to me why that is
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.
To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.
If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.
Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.
Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.
Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?
1) Labour cannot win in England. 2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win. 3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.
Labour evolves to come up with a proposition that can secure a majority of English seats
The media this morning seems to be showing lots of happy people out at theme parks, campsites and in hairdressers
and tonight they will be showing drunks fighting and moaning about how irresponsible everyone is
It seems to me a crazy decision to re open the pubs on a Saturday. Everyone is off work (well, not me) and champing at the bit for an all dayer after three months indoors. Surely it would have been more sensible to have "Soft openings" on Monday to get the staff and premises used to the new way of doing things. Why open the floodgates this way?
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it
You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for
The manifesto the party won on owns the party and that was clear, no indyref2 for a generation.
You can whinge as much as you like about it but that was the platform the Tories won on and it will be respected
I am very keen not to lose money betting on the Presidential election again. Especially after I had done so welling backing trump to win the nomination in 2016.
I want to hear solid reasons as to why Trump can win beyond "the polls are wrong" without any evidence as to why the polls are wrong.
Every incidence of left wingers doing something in America is immediatly greeted with the notion that it playing I to his hands, every poll showing that actually the action is popular with the American public is dismissed.
But the polls weren't really wrong in 2016, they got the voteshares pretty much spot on didn't they, nationally?
Biden is so much further ahead, they'd have to do worse than 2016 (where they were mostly right as I said) and be so wrong as to probably be useless in future. Can't see it myself.
I think we're all in a state of "well it happened last time, it will surely happen again". Putting my objective (as much as possible) hat on, Trump simply does not have the advantages he had last time.
The national polling was fine but the rust belt polling left something to be desired.
Intuitively it would seem easier to poll a state more accurately than the US as whole. This clearly doesn't seem to be the case and I am sure someone will come along shortly to explain to me why that is
UK constituency polls have a somewhat mixed record but I think that's down to getting a balanced sample from a relatively small area.
That shouldn't affect anything as large as a US state.
Oddly enough, the hairdressers on the corner isn't as busy as I was expecting. I have to say not all those cutting the hair are wearing masks and none of the customers are and even the 1m social distancing is more honoured in the breach than the observance so we'll see where that takes us.
I'd describe the openings in East Ham as "limited" with a number of cafes still only operating a takeaway service and as we don't have a theme park nearby I can't comment on those.
Apologies for bringing some negativity into this "super Saturday" but I've heard my brother has covid-19 again (!). I suspect he's never got rid of the first infection but he has once again contracted the infection which he believes came from an asymptomatic neighbour in the local co-op.
Some may be jumping up and down at the prospect of a pint or a haircut but the fact remains 60,000 or more have died and many others have had their long term health compromised by this virus. These deaths are more than just lines on politically weaponised bar charts and graphs - each one is a tragedy yet it seems in our rush to taste beer and look good the dead and the grieving are being too easily forgotten.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it
You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for
The manifesto the party won on owns the party and that was clear, no indyref2 for a generation.
You can whinge as much as you like about it but that was the platform the Tories won on and it will be respected
And what all conservatives voted for even if they claim they don’t like it now. It’s not a pick and mix menu post election for voters, they made their choice and have to live with it.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
EV4EL doesn’t work
Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland
I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson. And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.
The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.
Or be so brilliant that people will stretch a point.
Cummings thinks he meets this criteria, of course.
It would matter less if he was correct.
What about Alastair Campbell. He ruled by fear.
You're right, Campbell could be really scary, and he had that in common with Cummings. But otherwise their roles are completely different.
Campbell was about communication, spin, the message, and party discipline. He had no real input on policy, other than to give advice about whether things would land well with the public. Blair, Brown and others in a strong cabinet determined policy.
By contrast, it looks as if Cummings is the creative force behind much of the policy thinking behind this government, and most of the Cabinet are just ciphers for his creativity. He is not just a SPAD; he is the brains behind much of the government's agenda.
So a hugely different role from Campbell, and a much more risky one for an unelected adviser.
Sorry, on reflection I should be more succinct.
Campbell was Blair's servant. Cummings is Johnson's master.
Michael White of The Guardian was physically assaulted by Campbell in 1991 at the time Robert Maxwell was found floating in the Mediterranean. White had referred to Maxwell as 'Bob, Bob, Bobbing along' and in response Campbell knocked him to the floor. Had White then pursued charges and Campbell acquired a criminal record, would Blair have appointed him?
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
So if you were a pro-independence Scot you'd accept the situation and turn your thoughts elsewhere, reasonably happily?
Pro independence Scots would demand indyref2 if it was raining tomorrow!
We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.
We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.
There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.
Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want
Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
In 2014 in Johnson's own words he called for a period of reconciliation rather than ruling out future referendums.
Personally, I think there's some mileage in this for him. The reaction in the USA has been far worse than here.
This is pure Stephen Miller, and it will go down well with his core but it will not get him the suburban college educated whites that are slipping away from him.
They are gone. It's the white male non-college he needs to hold onto in massive numbers (and these are slipping).
I think there's so much confirmation bias on Trump on this site.
Doesn't help that one or two posters have taken it upon themselves to attack anyone who suggests otherwise (you know who you are) too.
This is a betting site.
Agreed, apparently saying that Trump might not lose is the same as saying you support him to some posters.
Agreed 100%
I despise Trump and hope he loses but I would not risk a single penny on this market this year. My thoughts are too strong to be objective - and the site I come to for objective analysis isn't objective either.
We are not Americans. The attempts to make contrasts between American and British politics or thinking that Americans must get rid of Trump in November because he's so self-evidently awful are just illogical if you want to predict accurately what will happen.
Not only that, but the system is different. We've seen several times recently that it doesn't matter how many votes Biden piles up in California and New York; if he doesn't win in enough States, even by half-a-dozen votes, the Electoral College will stay the way it did last time. What Trump appears to be doing is what he did last time. Reach out to the people who aren't doing all that well, and convince them that it's the nasty THEM who are to blame.
That is story crafting. Trump got less vote than Romney in Wisconsin but still won the state.
The story people keep telling themselves is that Trump's election was a white working class revolt against the Liberal elite.
But that doesn't work. There was nothing remarkable about the demographics of Trump's 2016 vote compared to Romney in 2012.
People so want Trump and Brexit to be part of a "moment" that they have linked them. I suspect there are a number of people on both sides of the spectrum who see defeat for Trump in November as a blow against Brexit.
Which it wouldn't be, as they are not linked.
I think my biggest worry is that the US economy turns around in September, Trump will get the credit and a lot of those less motivated anti-Trump voters sit on their hands because "he got he economy up and running again" and that will be mostly white suburban middle class types in the rust belt. It's legitimately the reason my betting on this election is in the tens of pounds and that's been on Pence to be the next president.
I wonder if the October surprise will be a Trump-branded vaccine offered free to all Americans?
It’s certainly possible that something like a national vaccine bill gets presented, leaving the House Dems to either agree with funding it or vote it down - that’s a definite win-win for the Republicans.
You’d need to add in some stuff to make it unpalatable to the Dems
Say a technical measure that restricts abortion rights or something but that is too complicated to explain easily.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
EV4EL doesn’t work
Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland
Would your solution be to abolish the Scottish parliament?
£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.
We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.
There wasn't time for a competitive tender, or have they already forgot about the clamour for PPE a few months ago?
Fair comment. The Cummings/Johnson regime's deliberate destruction of governance that encourages endemic corruption is happening anyway, and not just in a crisis scenario. As you point out, this particular example happened in a crisis situation. Nevertheless a properly governed system could probably cope with a crisis better.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
So he hasn't actually said that's what he will do then?
We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.
We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.
There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.
Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want
Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.
I have no problem with Cummings as I am not obsessed by him but he should have resigned and HMG is taking the hit for him not doing it
As I have said before there is some credence that he brought forward lockdown thereby saving thousands of lives including many Scots
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
EV4EL doesn’t work
Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland
Barnett should be abolished. Have a defined budget for each country and the power to vary taxes for each country. If the English wish to spend more they'd need to tax or borrow more. Same for the Scots. The one should not affect the other.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
So he hasn't actually said that's what he will do then?
£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.
We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.
There wasn't time for a competitive tender, or have they already forgot about the clamour for PPE a few months ago?
You Tories really are a bunch of corrupt unprincipled arses. You happily accept them paying their chum 252M without any checks and also support them taking a few pounds off disabled people, poor etc. Quite unbelievable.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.
We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson. And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.
The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.
That’s the thing.
The media keeps saying he’s the de facto PM. But he’s not. He’s an influential adviser but not the PM.
Surely the perception is what counts and the whole Cummings affair has cemented the notion that he his the one actually running things. I don't believe it is very wide of the mark either.
Johnson was born into privilege and has sailed through life with a combination of charm, lies, waffle and blagging. He has never done a hard day's work hard in his life. He's just the front man.
And that’s exactly my issue
The media continues to repeat an untruth for a combination of personal dislike and commercial reasons
This creates and reinforces a false perception
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.
By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.
Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.
Talking of Russia ... Stodge's thought-provoking header yesterday talked about Johnson's political philosophy. I am more interested in Dominic Cummings because clearly he is informing the government's thinking far more than Johnson. What is he is up to? What is he trying to achieve and why?
This is an interesting blog on a certain type of reformer in the 1960's Soviet Union that seems to have parallels with Cummings. Those reforms failed through their own contradictions.
The data bureaucracy mindset did take two powers to the moon - what Cummings is fond of quoting - but applied to the domestic sphere it partly spurred a cultural backlash.
Gove's and Cummings' should take note ; let's see if their iteration will be any more popular or effective.
Don't forget Cummings is a historian rather than a mathematician. A fluent Russian speaking one with 3 mysterious years on the Volga too.
He seems to be obsesses by data and maths as tools of control, but as we have seen too many times that mathematicians can get it very wrong, as in the GFC. All it takes is one step to be incorrect, and the answer falls.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
EV4EL doesn’t work
Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland
Would your solution be to abolish the Scottish parliament?
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
OKC, you will have him wetting his pants at thought of getting his jackboots out.
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.
To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.
If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.
Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.
Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.
Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?
1) Labour cannot win in England. 2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win. 3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.
As an English man my biggest concern about Scottish independence is that it leads to a decade of Tory rule south of the border. In time I would expect a realignment into a new competitive multiparty system, but in the short term it will be horrible.
I think it unfair to blame those in the lifeboat as the ship slowly sinks, but do feel a bit of envy.
Move north! We need good doctors. There is plenty of space in the lifeboat.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
On topic, I now expect Labour to form the next government.
I feel it in my bones: Boris is incompetent and will take the Tory brand down with him, whilst Starmer knows what he's doing.
This article shows poll-leads mean jack. They can be massive, and then evaporate in weeks - and the reverse can happen too.
But, I expect clear Labour leads in 2021 once Brexit has taken its final form, the economy continues to struggle to recover and the Government struggles to deliver its "levelling up" projects.
I remember there was a similar "in the bones" feeling accross the country in 1990/1991.
I expect the key to 2024 will be whether the UK has survived brexit and is seen to, or a Starmer led government would promise to take the UK back into the single market which could be a winner if brexit has failed
I don't expect Brexit to be a major election issues in 2024 - any more than the EU was in 2010. Starmer will seek to avoid the subject.
On to matters political, I think what some are forgetting is after 14 years in opposition the non-Conservative parties will be anxious to get their snouts in the trough (if I'm not being overtly cynical) just as the Conservatives and LDs were after 13 years of Labour rule.
Labour, SNP, LDs and Greens and others will make a non-Conservative Government work because they will have no option. They will be helped by the Conservatives trying to work out what to do next after 14 years in Government.
While I don't think a 1997-style wipeout is inconceivable next time, I do think IF the Conservatives get back, there will, after 19 years, be a significant move away from them in 2029.
For now, Starmer's task is to present Labour as the leader of a credible, alternative Government and position his Party as to be in a position not only to pick up a good number of Conservative seats but to empower other parties to do their bit to break down the Conservative Parliamentary Party to sub 300.
The SNP will obviously see a Labour-led Government as a route to another independence referendum and one can envisage that as the "price" for their support.
Starmer will seek to reassure Unionists he will "campaign vigorously" for Scotland to remain in the Union. The corollary of that will be the pledge from the SNP to continue to support the Labour-led Government if the referendum is held and Scotland votes to remain in the Union.
I can't comment as to the political impact of a second referendum defeat for the SNP - I'll leave that to others.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.
We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.
There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.
Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want
Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.
I have no problem with Cummings as I am not obsessed by him but he should have resigned and HMG is taking the hit for him not doing it
As I have said before there is some credence that he brought forward lockdown thereby saving thousands of lives including many Scots
£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.
We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.
If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.
Boris has already formally rejected Sturgeon's indyref2 request
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Ignore HYUFD.
He is a zealot with no common sense
HYUFD often talks sense, but only when the blinkers are off!
"often" my arse, he is a moronic halfwitted dupe who would blindly support the government doing absolutely anything.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.
To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.
It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.
That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.
It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.
Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.
Is 3.25 "quite likely"?
I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.
If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.
If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.
He was opposed to a customs border in the Irish Sea but still agreed to one.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
To Malcolm Newcastle upon Tyne is Southern Britain . . .
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.
By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.
Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.
No, even if a second referendum was won the SNP would be pushing for indyref3 within 5 minutes.
The 2014 referendum was once in a generation and must be respected as such.
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.
If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.
He was opposed to a customs border in the Irish Sea but still agreed to one.
He lies for a living , he will do what is good for him and not the dupes like HY FUD
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum
No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words
Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies
The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.
If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.
He was opposed to a customs border in the Irish Sea but still agreed to one.
That was a different matter to respect the GFA and move to a trade deal, Northern Ireland remains in the UK.
Of course if we get a trade deal with the EU there would be no possible reason for Scots to complain anyway
Thatcher reportedly believed that if you weren't behind in the polls within 6 months of coming into office you weren't doing your job properly - getting the tough, unpopular decisions out of the way early in your term, with the results showing up later in time for you to win re-election. The trouble with this shambles is that Johnson wants to be loved. Thatcher didn't care whether people liked her or not - all she wanted, in so far as she cared about what others thought, was respect.
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.
To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.
If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.
Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.
Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.
Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?
1) Labour cannot win in England. 2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win. 3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.
As an English man my biggest concern about Scottish independence is that it leads to a decade of Tory rule south of the border. In time I would expect a realignment into a new competitive multiparty system, but in the short term it will be horrible.
I think it unfair to blame those in the lifeboat as the ship slowly sinks, but do feel a bit of envy.
Move north! We need good doctors. There is plenty of space in the lifeboat.
First, thank you for your kind words on my thread the other evening - much appreciated. I didn't get a very good mark from the Welsh school teacher but as I'm not one of his pupils I'm not too bothered.
I'd have no issue with a federal system - I'm a big fan of devolution to as low as level as possible while recognising some functions (defence obviously) need to remain at a national level. Our local democracy is in dire need of revitalisation but regrettably all I hear are notions of a further round of structural re-organisation (probably to save money rather than improve services or to provide improved accountability an transparency to residents).
The problem is I can't get away from the notion any kind of federal system will still rely on a re-distribution of funds from the richer areas to the poorer. I live in Newham yet have dealings with authorities like West Sussex and Hampshire and they are very different areas in so many aspects.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania to name but a few in Europe.
Ireland of course taxes and spends less than the UK
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
Look at Madrid in Catalonia or Beijing in Hong Kong if you really want to see a crackdown on pro independence demonstrators, Westminster is being generous merely banning indyref2
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.
By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.
Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.
No, even if a second referendum was won the SNP would be pushing for indyref3 within 5 minutes.
The 2014 referendum was once in a generation and must be respected as such.
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.
To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.
It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.
That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.
It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.
Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.
Is 3.25 "quite likely"?
I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.
If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
The first few years of Scottish independence would be quite difficult from an economic point of view, but as a long term proposition it is very attractive, especially if it comes with single market membership and England is still trying to trade mostly with the Antipodes. Small countries tend to be run better than large countries, and small countries being run by large countries usually fare worst of all.
Talking of Russia ... Stodge's thought-provoking header yesterday talked about Johnson's political philosophy. I am more interested in Dominic Cummings because clearly he is informing the government's thinking far more than Johnson. What is he is up to? What is he trying to achieve and why?
This is an interesting blog on a certain type of reformer in the 1960's Soviet Union that seems to have parallels with Cummings. Those reforms failed through their own contradictions.
The data bureaucracy mindset did take two powers to the moon - what Cummings is fond of quoting - but applied to the domestic sphere it partly spurred a cultural backlash.
Gove's and Cummings' should take note ; let's see if their iteration will be any more popular or effective.
Don't forget Cummings is a historian rather than a mathematician. A fluent Russian speaking one with 3 mysterious years on the Volga too.
He seems to be obsesses by data and maths as tools of control, but as we have seen too many times that mathematicians can get it very wrong, as in the GFC. All it takes is one step to be incorrect, and the answer falls.
Historians are also epically shit at mathematics, for the most part. There is one professor at Harvard, Aviezar Tucker, who is a partial exception to this.
Cummings of course is probably a very bad historian, given where he studied, but the rule probably holds good.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
To Malcolm Newcastle upon Tyne is Southern Britain . . .
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
Look at Madrid in Catalonia or Beijing in Hong Kong if you really want to see a crackdown on pro independence demonstrators, Westminster is being generous merely banning indyref2
I would not be surprised to see crossover sooner rather than later.
It is clear most people are still very worried by covid and nearly half the country have been financially protected by employment in the public sector or furloughed
Boris has paid a big price for Cummings and his brand has taken a hit
Whether this matters is not clear and the focus over the next few months will be on the economy, help for those suffering, and if covid can be contained
Also Boris will be in place at the end of the year and responsible for the deal or no deal outcome of brexit
The next election is 4 years away and many variable factors will determine just how that election pans out but I am far less worried now Corbyn is history
How might a Biden presidency affect Johnson administration (where have I heard THAT before?) My sense is that election of Bill Clinton was not fatal to John Major, but it didn't do him any favors AND it gave Tony Blair an obvious role model.
Keir Stumer sorta comes across like a Joe Biden with youthful vigor - somewhat like Joe himself back when he was borking Bork. Granted without Biden's working-class cred, but also without a propensity for foot-in-mouth disease.
“...without Biden's working-class cred...”
Huh?
A quick glance at Keith Starmer’s early life clearly indicates that he is most certainly “working class” (which was still a thing in England in the 1960s).
He was obviously very bright, and worked his way towards a good career.
Having cred with the working class has little to do with whether said person is or was working class themselves. People would laugh if Boris claimed to speak for the working class but the working class voters wouldnt. And Corbyn was a middle class guy whod spent his career at impotent protests but people thought he was the greatest labour leader ever.
So I think Starmers upbringing is entirely irrelevant to his appeal and cred. He'll do better with the working class because of time, that he's normal and competent.
To shoot your final point down in flames, can I introduce Boris Johnson? Neither normal, nor competent but loved by the working classes.
Thst doesn't shoot my point down, since I wasn't saying you need that to be loved by the working classes, I meant that's why he will do better than Corbyn with the working classes. The reference to time was to suggest also he will do better simply because itll be after yet more years of government, but not necessarily that he'll win the working classes, just do better as wont repel them.
You may be right. But Starmer underestimates Johnson's appeal to certain sectors of society at his peril.
Johnson's "Benny Hill" persona works well in the wider world and Johnson knows how to work his dog whistle masterfully.
Morning all,
I predict that the whole 'jolly gosh', 'crikey' Jennings and Derbyshire persona will have become thoroughly grating and a total turnoff well before 2024. The British public are not stupid and they can see when when someone isn't up to the job.
Indeed - and I suspect that a hypothetcical election held in the near term would produce a 2017 like outcome - ie back to Hung Parliament territory with the Tories as the largest party though possibly without even the DUP as allies.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.
If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.
Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do hope you are correct.
I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.
Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.
Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.
Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone
You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.
By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.
Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.
No, even if a second referendum was won the SNP would be pushing for indyref3 within 5 minutes.
The 2014 referendum was once in a generation and must be respected as such.
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
Look at Madrid in Catalonia or Beijing in Hong Kong if you really want to see a crackdown on pro independence demonstrators, Westminster is being generous merely banning indyref2
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.
We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.
There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.
Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want
Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.
I have no problem with Cummings as I am not obsessed by him but he should have resigned and HMG is taking the hit for him not doing it
As I have said before there is some credence that he brought forward lockdown thereby saving thousands of lives including many Scots
And if so the irony meter would break
Part of that is him rewriting history at his press conference (a little like his "predictions" of coronavirus).
It's almost certain he was one of those seduced by herd immunity, but changed his mind late on, when most others were questioning why we weren't already locking down.
I've not seen anyone contradicting the Times story that he did push for a lockdown before Boris, but it was only about a week before, and he was still a late convert to the cause.
I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.
Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.
Remind you of something?
It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.
Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.
You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.
To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.
If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.
Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.
Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.
Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?
1) Labour cannot win in England. 2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win. 3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.
As an English man my biggest concern about Scottish independence is that it leads to a decade of Tory rule south of the border. In time I would expect a realignment into a new competitive multiparty system, but in the short term it will be horrible.
I think it unfair to blame those in the lifeboat as the ship slowly sinks, but do feel a bit of envy.
Move north! We need good doctors. There is plenty of space in the lifeboat.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
First, thank you for your kind words on my thread the other evening - much appreciated. I didn't get a very good mark from the Welsh school teacher but as I'm not one of his pupils I'm not too bothered.
I'd have no issue with a federal system - I'm a big fan of devolution to as low as level as possible while recognising some functions (defence obviously) need to remain at a national level. Our local democracy is in dire need of revitalisation but regrettably all I hear are notions of a further round of structural re-organisation (probably to save money rather than improve services or to provide improved accountability an transparency to residents).
The problem is I can't get away from the notion any kind of federal system will still rely on a re-distribution of funds from the richer areas to the poorer. I live in Newham yet have dealings with authorities like West Sussex and Hampshire and they are very different areas in so many aspects.
Well, you should be. Different opinions are allowed. Even wrong ones. Gross factual errors that you persistently double down on are a different matter.
I speak with the voice of experience, of course...
Edit - I could have said a lot more but other posters had already said it. I’m interested therefore that you single me out.
Thatcher reportedly believed that if you weren't behind in the polls within 6 months of coming into office you weren't doing your job properly - getting the tough, unpopular decisions out of the way early in your term, with the results showing up later in time for you to win re-election. The trouble with this shambles is that Johnson wants to be loved. Thatcher didn't care whether people liked her or not - all she wanted, in so far as she cared about what others thought, was respect.
By unpopular decisions though I don't she meant things on the scale of making a total horlicks of the virus response including sending thousands into care homes untested.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
The first few years of Scottish independence would be quite difficult from an economic point of view, but as a long term proposition it is very attractive, especially if it comes with single market membership and England is still trying to trade mostly with the Antipodes. Small countries tend to be run better than large countries, and small countries being run by large countries usually fare worst of all.
Exactly , no picnic for sure but easily doable and far better being able to pick policies that suit a small country rather than having ones that suit a large country forced upon you. The union is past its sell by date.
I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson. And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.
The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.
That’s the thing.
The media keeps saying he’s the de facto PM. But he’s not. He’s an influential adviser but not the PM.
Surely the perception is what counts and the whole Cummings affair has cemented the notion that he his the one actually running things. I don't believe it is very wide of the mark either.
Johnson was born into privilege and has sailed through life with a combination of charm, lies, waffle and blagging. He has never done a hard day's work hard in his life. He's just the front man.
And that’s exactly my issue The media continues to repeat an untruth for a combination of personal dislike and commercial reasons This creates and reinforces a false perception
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
If Cummings is not running the country, then who is? Certainly not the idle dimwitted blusterer that the Russians have decided to make prime minister.
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.
Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty
You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised
And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum
No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it
You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for
The manifesto the party won on owns the party and that was clear, no indyref2 for a generation.
You can whinge as much as you like about it but that was the platform the Tories won on and it will be respected
Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.
Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.
Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.
If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.
In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.
Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.
Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.
This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?
To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes
I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument
International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.
To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.
The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound
And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business
LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.
No
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.
I do not believe any of the numbers quoted, given they all come via Westminster counts. Regardless it matters not a jot, I bet we import more from England than we export. Does not change in any way that we could survive perfectly well on our own. If not then UK is f**ked when it leaves EU.
Comments
and tonight they will be showing drunks fighting and moaning about how irresponsible everyone is
The media continues to repeat an untruth for a combination of personal dislike and commercial reasons
This creates and reinforces a false perception
You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for
He is a zealot with no common sense
Is that a squadron of pigs flying by?
You can whinge as much as you like about it but that was the platform the Tories won on and it will be respected
That shouldn't affect anything as large as a US state.
Oddly enough, the hairdressers on the corner isn't as busy as I was expecting. I have to say not all those cutting the hair are wearing masks and none of the customers are and even the 1m social distancing is more honoured in the breach than the observance so we'll see where that takes us.
I'd describe the openings in East Ham as "limited" with a number of cafes still only operating a takeaway service and as we don't have a theme park nearby I can't comment on those.
Apologies for bringing some negativity into this "super Saturday" but I've heard my brother has covid-19 again (!). I suspect he's never got rid of the first infection but he has once again contracted the infection which he believes came from an asymptomatic neighbour in the local co-op.
Some may be jumping up and down at the prospect of a pint or a haircut but the fact remains 60,000 or more have died and many others have had their long term health compromised by this virus. These deaths are more than just lines on politically weaponised bar charts and graphs - each one is a tragedy yet it seems in our rush to taste beer and look good the dead and the grieving are being too easily forgotten.
I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.
Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer
Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland
Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.
Got most of the pre-qualifying tosh written. Unlikely to offer further tips but maybe something will pop up.
Say a technical measure that restricts abortion rights or something but that is too complicated to explain easily.
As I have said before there is some credence that he brought forward lockdown thereby saving thousands of lives including many Scots
And if so the irony meter would break
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
Betting PostF1: Verstappen got very close in third practice. Decided to back him each way (third the odds top 2) to top qualifying, at 7.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/07/austria-pre-qualifying-2020.html
By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.
Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.
He seems to be obsesses by data and maths as tools of control, but as we have seen too many times that mathematicians can get it very wrong, as in the GFC. All it takes is one step to be incorrect, and the answer falls.
I’d prefer a proper federal system overall.
Labour, SNP, LDs and Greens and others will make a non-Conservative Government work because they will have no option. They will be helped by the Conservatives trying to work out what to do next after 14 years in Government.
While I don't think a 1997-style wipeout is inconceivable next time, I do think IF the Conservatives get back, there will, after 19 years, be a significant move away from them in 2029.
For now, Starmer's task is to present Labour as the leader of a credible, alternative Government and position his Party as to be in a position not only to pick up a good number of Conservative seats but to empower other parties to do their bit to break down the Conservative Parliamentary Party to sub 300.
The SNP will obviously see a Labour-led Government as a route to another independence referendum and one can envisage that as the "price" for their support.
Starmer will seek to reassure Unionists he will "campaign vigorously" for Scotland to remain in the Union. The corollary of that will be the pledge from the SNP to continue to support the Labour-led Government if the referendum is held and Scotland votes to remain in the Union.
I can't comment as to the political impact of a second referendum defeat for the SNP - I'll leave that to others.
View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family
And maybe address the border issue Malc
And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain
Boris has already formally rejected Sturgeon's indyref2 request
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51106796
I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.
If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.
There will be some drunks getting into trouble but so what?
There were drunks getting into trouble last night too.
The 2014 referendum was once in a generation and must be respected as such.
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
Of course if we get a trade deal with the EU there would be no possible reason for Scots to complain anyway
I'd have no issue with a federal system - I'm a big fan of devolution to as low as level as possible while recognising some functions (defence obviously) need to remain at a national level. Our local democracy is in dire need of revitalisation but regrettably all I hear are notions of a further round of structural re-organisation (probably to save money rather than improve services or to provide improved accountability an transparency to residents).
The problem is I can't get away from the notion any kind of federal system will still rely on a re-distribution of funds from the richer areas to the poorer. I live in Newham yet have dealings with authorities like West Sussex and Hampshire and they are very different areas in so many aspects.
Ireland of course taxes and spends less than the UK
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
10% - unlikely
30% - quite likely
50% - likely
75% - very likely
Cummings of course is probably a very bad historian, given where he studied, but the rule probably holds good.
You are a hideous monster.
It's almost certain he was one of those seduced by herd immunity, but changed his mind late on, when most others were questioning why we weren't already locking down.
I've not seen anyone contradicting the Times story that he did push for a lockdown before Boris, but it was only about a week before, and he was still a late convert to the cause.
1) voted for another referendum
2) held it
3) voted yes
4) negotiated independence
5) attained independence
6) applied to join the EU
7) been accepted
8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2020/01/export-statistics-scotland-2018/documents/export-statistics-scotland-2018---publication/export-statistics-scotland-2018---publication/govscot:document/Export+Statistics+Scotland+2018+-+Publication.pdf
I speak with the voice of experience, of course...
Edit - I could have said a lot more but other posters had already said it. I’m interested therefore that you single me out.
"Out of 40,000 claimed [Momentum] members, just over 8,000 voted," [in the recent election for a slate]
The students have got bored and moved on, most of them probably having not knocked on a single door in their time as serious agitators.
Who would have thought it?
Nailed on I'd say.