I am sure this has been asked before so forgive me asking again but I don't remember the answers.
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can their be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
Labour has lost Scotland for the moment. The Tory assumption that they could lose the UK and still win in England is pretty heroic. I am not sure they should take the English so much for granted.
I am sure this has been asked before so forgive me asking again but I don't remember the answers.
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can their be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
POint 1: it's the Parliament that is fixed in term, not the Government surely. Point 2: why not? they'd still be part of the UK and have business to transact and constituents to represent on non-devolved matters. Quite apart from forestalling any monkey business that might happen if they were off the scene.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
Labour has lost Scotland for the moment. The Tory assumption that they could lose the UK and still win in England is pretty heroic. I am not sure they should take the English so much for granted.
Getting into Downing Street with SNP votes and only able to pass laws with SNP votes will be about as successful as if the European Commission President was elected with Nigel Farage's votes pre Brexit, and only capable of passing laws with UKIP support.
It doesn't work.
If you expect Ian Blackford to be playing nice marching through the lobbies every day in order to make Westminster succeed then you have another thing coming.
He doesn't have to. He only as to support Starmer in key votes that might lead to a Vote of Confidence. He could perfectly well keep Starmer in place whilst supporting only those bits of policy that he agrees with or votes that would lead to the fall of the Government. All the while advancing the cause of Independence. It would be messy but it is not inconceivable.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
I am sure this has been asked before so forgive me asking again but I don't remember the answers.
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can there be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
POint 1: it's the Parliament that is fixed in term, not the Government surely. Point 2: why not? they'd still be part of the UK and have business to transact and constituents to represent on non-devolved matters. Quite apart from forestalling any monkey business that might happen if they were off the scene.
I agree with you on both points. But I am not an expert on this and wonder what those with more knowledge might think.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Eestminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
Or by Mr Gove, going by polling on his popularity in Scotland (which we discussed some time back but which still surprises me).
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Eestminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
1) It’s a *net* loss of 47 seats that would be needed to deprive the Tories of their majority. This may be harder than it seems. Quite a number of seats in the North and Wales have been trending Tory over time and may still fall even if the national trend flows against them.
2) Brown has very foolishly set a precedent that the PM is the PM is the PM. That was not (contrary to the inept advice of O’Donnell) the case previously, where it was accepted and had been accepted since 1929 that an incumbent government that came a clear second in the seat count should resign office. This precedent makes a minority government taking power much harder. It means that Johnson can squat like a Gordon gargoyle in Number 10 and to remove him there needs to be a positive vote in the House for an alternative.
So if Starmer is second in terms of seats he needs a deal for positive support, which will be much harder than if he tops the chart in terms of seats and just needs to ask everyone to abstain.
That increases the calculation to around 80 net gains for Labour.
Possible? Yes. Easy? Ummm...
The SNP will be waiting to be bought off for their positive support.
Their price is obvious.
Which is why it will never happen.
Starmer’s only route to power is through Scotland, he needs to get everyone there campaigning hard for the next three years
If it’s looking like an SNP-led coalition is likely, everywhere else will vote Tory, as they did in 2015. Any Parliament that can’t form a majority without SNP support, will quickly be dissolved and another election take place.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Eestminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
Matches the Catalan experience. Once the PP weren't in power in Madrid, Catalan independence became less important.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
1. Tories retain their majority. 80 seats is a big cushion. But...Covid. Boris got the jab acquisition and roll-out right, so those who put him in with that majority - the older generation - may give him a thank you vote for that. But tax rises to pay for Covid may prove painful. Not a given this far out, but more likely than
2. Labour gain an outright majority. It's going to need them to engage in Battle Royale. 15 months into this Government, no real sign of that. No Big Ideas yet. Frankly, no little ones either. A Micawber Opposition, waiting for something to come up. That something is likely to be
3. Coalition government. Ugh. I mean, really ugh - a deeply unwelcome prospect. It is the first choice of very few. Nationalists maybe - who want to use the confusion as cover for departure from the UK. So just a means to an end, rather than a desired outcome in its own right. I'm not sure even the LibDems would go "Yippee - our 7 MPs can taste power again!"
The English especially have an aversion to weak governments. Even weak (initially) majority Governments are hated and punished - John Major was hammered, James Callaghan before that. At regional and local level, coalitions barely make it to the next electoral test. Hell, Scotland put in place a majority SNP regime even though the system was designed to make that impossible. The default setting is a preference for strong, stable government that can implement a voter-approved manifesto.
So if we get to the next election and the polls show we are headed for a messy coalition - with re-runs of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket ads - I fully expect the Tories to do better from an aversion to Coalition than Labour. Just because the previous election was so much about "get Brexit done", and that has been delivered. A Labour majority is such a huge thing to deliver. The Tories post poll tax and Maggie were not in a great place, but still stayed in power when the other option was Kinnock. Many thought 1992 a shock Tory win - but I predicted the result to within an accuracy of 2 seats.
So my take is different to Mike.
Agree. Labour have a number of problems in forming a government. Everyone now knows that the old habit of voting LD because you wanted a nicer sort of Tory won't work and that the LDs are the party of the posh left who won't vote for the same party as their cleaner (who did vote Labour but now Tory).
So the centre right has nowhere to go but vote Tory. Unified votes win elections. Ask the SNP.
And then, assuming Labour can't win on its own, it can only win with SNP in its pocket. There aren't any other parties of size. The more likely that is, the more the centre reverts to no choice but Tory. So, the more likely it is that Labour will do well, the more the Tory vote will remain solid.
(The English centre right has had enough of the politics of NI, and I would not be surprised if it moves towards a sensible unionism: one called Great Britain, and a united Ireland. Brexit+EU+behaviour of NI parties+a more secular RoI=single Ireland makes sense. Nothing about that will encourage English Tories to see the DUP back in the driving seat.)
I am sure this has been asked before so forgive me asking again but I don't remember the answers.
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can their be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
After the vote of No Confidence, Starmer would be obliged to advise HM that Johnson now commands a majority and resign.
Just had an email from Pret advertising their something or other. This now falls into the Jerry Lee Lewis category of oh I didn't know they were still going.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
Boris may well get a Covid bonus at the next election but if he does then surely so will Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland, with Northern Ireland being slightly more messy for reasons Karen Bradley can probably explain after a fashion. It is possible the 2024 Parliament may look horribly familiar.
The pandemic will be done before the next GE. The issues will be around how to build the post-pandemic world.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Would Starmer support an independent Scotland using the pound with a currency union?
If he did, having been supported into government of the UK by the SNP, there'd be fury in the rest of the UK, and rightly so.
If he didn't, would the SNP back him to lead the UK?
1) Someone ask him 2) Indeed there would. The centre right will make sure it doesn't happen 3) If it made it harder for England, Yes.
Wanting the pound as the non formal currency in Scotland is a loud shout of: "We don't believe our own rhetoric, and we suspect the voters don't either".
If you are serious about independence, currency is central. The only choices are the 'Scottish Dollar' (formal) or the Euro (informal). Both are hard but makes the break clear. keeping the link with the pound says: There's a bank of last resort and it isn't either in Edinburgh or the EU. I wonder where it can be....?
It should be a condition of independence discussions, made clear before a referendum, along with a few other tricky issues.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
It ought also to be noted that Xinjiang is China's biggest producer of polysilicon thanks to its abundance of cheap coal - the production process is highly energy intensive.
The solar industry and Brussels lawmakers argue Europe’s renewable energy push should not come at a human cost amid long-standing international concern over reports China has detained 1 million people with Muslim backgrounds in camps in Xinjiang and is putting them to work.
“Everybody knows what’s going on in China, and when facilities are based there you have to accept that there’s a high possibility that forced labor will be used,” said Milan Nitzschke, president of EU ProSun, an alliance of solar businesses seeking to promote sustainable, solar manufacturing based in the EU....
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Boris may well get a Covid bonus at the next election but if he does then surely so will Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland, with Northern Ireland being slightly more messy for reasons Karen Bradley can probably explain after a fashion. It is possible the 2024 Parliament may look horribly familiar.
The pandemic will be done before the next GE. The issues will be around how to build the post-pandemic world.
There will be lingering cases and outbreaks, particularly in ethnic inner cities, but yes it is the economic, educational and social carnage that will predominate. I am not convinced that the Tories will find many grateful voters there.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
indeed. how could one even begin to plan to just steal the tory majority but only by 5 seats or whatever. 1974. but i dont think anyone was planning for it?
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
They don't need to work with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
They can provide confidence and supply to Labour but nothing more than that. It would then be like 2017-2019 on steroids as any English votes they can abstain on and the Opposition will have a majority.
What's Labour going to do? Say that the Scottish MPs need to vote on English matters? How will they enforce that?
They won't ever need to vote with the Tories - they can simply abstain, say it's nothing to do with Scotland, sit back and watch the chaos burn.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Preferably without a referendum. So it would have to be in the manifestos of all the political parties (except the Tories of course). A Starmer led government would then have the mandate to implement PR.
The Reform party is in favour of PR (naturally) but even the SNP are to their credit - even though they profit greatly from FPTP.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
The major contitutional crisis would be if SNP are part of a coalition in the U.K. following a successful independence referendum. They’d be negotiating on both sides.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Would Starmer support an independent Scotland using the pound with a currency union?
If he did, having been supported into government of the UK by the SNP, there'd be fury in the rest of the UK, and rightly so.
If he didn't, would the SNP back him to lead the UK?
1) Someone ask him 2) Indeed there would. The centre right will make sure it doesn't happen 3) If it made it harder for England, Yes.
Wanting the pound as the non formal currency in Scotland is a loud shout of: "We don't believe our own rhetoric, and we suspect the voters don't either".
If you are serious about independence, currency is central. The only choices are the 'Scottish Dollar' (formal) or the Euro (informal). Both are hard but makes the break clear. keeping the link with the pound says: There's a bank of last resort and it isn't either in Edinburgh or the EU. I wonder where it can be....?
It should be a condition of independence discussions, made clear before a referendum, along with a few other tricky issues.
Negotiate a NI type arrangement with the EU and go into the Euro.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
The major contitutional crisis would be if SNP are part of a coalition in the U.K. following a successful independence referendum. They’d be negotiating on both sides.
EVEL would presumably be deemed to apply. But there might be technical legal issues in using it, in that foreign policy (so to speak), etc., are not devolved matters.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
Ardern is a good counter-example, and I did think of it before posting.
Ardern took a gamble in a Coalition with NZ First, but there was no major downside to her gamble. (Of course, she later won the Worldwide Covid Lottery, and so it all worked out peachy for her & NZ Labour).
By contrast, as @noneoftheabove has articulated, there are major downsides for SKS in a coalition with the SNP, depending on how it actually pans out.
For SKS, it really comes down to whether he thinks he is a nimble enough politician to beat Sturgeon & Co in Scotland in the referendum he will have to run as the price of support (probably, a referendum largely on the SNP's terms).
If not, SKS will end up with the blame for the loss of Scotland (fair or not) and the creation of a largely Tory rUK.
Is SKS that nimble? Is he as nimble as Nicola? Or Jacinda, for that matter?
SKS is a serious-minded plodder, not a graceful dancer.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
I was assuming that the Tories would hold half of them. Hence my suggestion that the LibDems win 10 making a total of 20+ seats.
The betting suggests that Johnson's exit date as party leader will be 2024+ (1.78 on Betfair).
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
I was assuming that the Tories would hold half of them. Hence my suggestion that the LibDems win 10 making a total of 20+ seats.
The betting suggests that Johnson's exit date as party leader will be 2024+ (1.78 on Betfair).
Thanks.
I think Johnson will stand in 2024. I dont subscribe to the view that he will gently drift into retirement in a year or so and go and earn the big money. Maybe half way through a second term.
Getting into Downing Street with SNP votes and only able to pass laws with SNP votes will be about as successful as if the European Commission President was elected with Nigel Farage's votes pre Brexit, and only capable of passing laws with UKIP support.
It doesn't work.
If you expect Ian Blackford to be playing nice marching through the lobbies every day in order to make Westminster succeed then you have another thing coming.
He doesn't have to. He only as to support Starmer in key votes that might lead to a Vote of Confidence. He could perfectly well keep Starmer in place whilst supporting only those bits of policy that he agrees with or votes that would lead to the fall of the Government. All the while advancing the cause of Independence. It would be messy but it is not inconceivable.
But that's my point. Blackford can offer confidence and supply at a price but what then?
Think of all the devolved issues the SNP have a policy of not voting on: health, education etc
England will be without a functional government. Which works for the SNP. Are Labour going to spend five years in office never touching health or education? Never reforming the NHS? Or are they going to buy the SNP or Tory support to get NHS reforms through?
It's not simply enough to be not Tories. Cameron had to bring Clegg into the tent, into the quad, but that's not the SNPs ambition.
The graph assumes a constant prevalence of Covid-19, which in turn would presumably mean some relaxations of restrictions.
It also assumes that vaccination is 100% effective in preventing hospitalization, ICU admission, and death, though.
ICU admissions will be the limiting factor -- as indeed has been predicted right from the beginning of the pandemic -- and its reduction by only 0.8 times vaccine effectiveness once groups 1-9 are completely done shows that vaccinating over 50s doesn't get us out of the woods. I have long thought that the trickiest period, politically, will be when deaths are right down (which I don't expect to happen as fast as Max and Robert do) but the hospitals still packed with unlucky 30-50 years olds like my relative. (Still on a ventilator, but now stable. Doctors not talking about his chances.)
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
Probably true but how is going to persuade Johnson to move him out of the poisoned chalice to say Foreign office?
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
He might help- I doubt that he will cut through positively or negatively in the way BoJo has. A bit like Major after Thatcher, perhaps. However...
1 Apart from the fact that he scrubs up well on Insta, what do any of us know about him? Go on- tell me about a speech he's given, or even what he sounds like. He's still something of a blank sheet newbie.
2 There are some pointers that, since pressing the initial furlough button, he's had a bad crisis. I get why he wants business as usual, but his pressing for reopening made the autumn-winter wave worse than it could have been. And I don't think he's denied getting Covid nutters in to talk to the PM.
3 Everyone in the cabinet- even sweet little Matty H- is tied to Boris's Brexit. Which will either be seen to be working well in 2024, or it won't. And that elephant in the room is still up in the air.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Only Cameron made them fit for office once more.
By 1997 the Conservative Government were tired, emotional and accident prone. The present Conservative Government maybe accident prone, but they are also duplicitous, scheming and self-serving. They are going nowhere without a bare knuckle fight.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Preferably without a referendum. So it would have to be in the manifestos of all the political parties (except the Tories of course). A Starmer led government would then have the mandate to implement PR.
The Reform party is in favour of PR (naturally) but even the SNP are to their credit - even though they profit greatly from FPTP.
If its in the Labour manifesto then fine. Seems unlikely imo.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
Probably true but how is going to persuade Johnson to move him out of the poisoned chalice to say Foreign office?
I suppose Sunak's best hope is Priti reverts to type, and does something so outrageous that even Johnson has no alternative but to show her the door. Raab looks like a relatively safe pair of hands
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
I've a long history of support for PR and a tacit acceptance of a freelance effort to support tactical voting in Broxtowe and Norfol North (Norman Lamb). But there are real problems in getting overt deals.
First, both parties rule them out and you can be expelled from both for supporting them (several LibDems were expelled for supporting me in my marginal). That needs to be softened for any progress at all.
Second, constituency parties see standing in GEs as their raison d'etre, and fiercely resist being told not to bother.
Third, the landscape keeps shifting - the main change in polls since the election is LD->Lab, which won't help the LD challenge in their marginals. The reverse happens too as fortunes ebb and flow.
Fourth, voters don't follow hints wholesale. In the borough elections in my ward where the parties stood less than full slates, activists actively encouraged people to vote for both of us. I estimate that only about 2/3 of Lab voters complied, and only about half the LD voters - others simply declined to cast their second vote.
Fifth, there is a long history of campaign leaflets saying "Winning here" and "Only we can win" in utterly hopeless seats (cf. Uxbridge 2019, where the LibDems campaigned on that basis from a starting point of... 3.9%, and indeed took 2.4% off Labour's challenge to Johnson, who had been mildly vulnerable with just a 5% swing needed for Labour).
It can work but it needs a strong lead from the centre - a formal pact. Obviously concentrating activists in the most winnable seats always happens, but it's not nearly as effective.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Preferably without a referendum. So it would have to be in the manifestos of all the political parties (except the Tories of course). A Starmer led government would then have the mandate to implement PR.
The Reform party is in favour of PR (naturally) but even the SNP are to their credit - even though they profit greatly from FPTP.
If its in the Labour manifesto then fine. Seems unlikely imo.
It was in Justin Trudeau's manifesto in 2015. I think it was a solemn pledge of the Canadian Liberals.
There is a very good reason why proportional representation never actually happens, even if it is in manifestos.
(EDIT, And of course he benefitted from his decision to renege on the promise in the very next election, where he lost the popular vote but won a majority of seats).
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
They don't need to work with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
They can provide confidence and supply to Labour but nothing more than that. It would then be like 2017-2019 on steroids as any English votes they can abstain on and the Opposition will have a majority.
What's Labour going to do? Say that the Scottish MPs need to vote on English matters? How will they enforce that?
They won't ever need to vote with the Tories - they can simply abstain, say it's nothing to do with Scotland, sit back and watch the chaos burn.
It's the UK-wide stuff that actually matters, though. The budget most of all. And a lot of legislation can be framed to be UK-wide. The Tories voting against every effort to, say, reorganise health and education in England is not going to be noticed by many people and is not going to bring a government down. In any case, the current government has taken so much power for the executive Commons votes are far less important than they were previously.
On topic a weaker Tory government with a much smaller majority seems the most likely outcome of the next general election to me. I don't see Boris as politically inept as Brown, not even close, and SKS is no Cameron. Its not impossible that they may even keep a similar majority. I think that is about as likely as them losing power.
The advantages of incumbency in the UK are becoming dangerously high making switches of government rare events based on major changes. Whilst its possible that the wheels could come off in a post pandemic world I am not seeing that kind of turning point at the moment.
Its a point I have made before but in the first election I could vote in 1979 there was a change of government. I was a second year law student. By the time the government changed again I was 36, married with kids and a partner in a law firm. By the time it changed again I was 49 and had been an advocate for 10 years. That government is still in power and might well see me to retirement. 3 changes in an adult's working life (if you include being a student). These are rare events and they are getting rarer.
The graph assumes a constant prevalence of Covid-19, which in turn would presumably mean some relaxations of restrictions.
It also assumes that vaccination is 100% effective in preventing hospitalization, ICU admission, and death, though.
ICU admissions will be the limiting factor -- as indeed has been predicted right from the beginning of the pandemic -- and its reduction by only 0.8 times vaccine effectiveness once groups 1-9 are completely done shows that vaccinating over 50s doesn't get us out of the woods. I have long thought that the trickiest period, politically, will be when deaths are right down (which I don't expect to happen as fast as Max and Robert do) but the hospitals still packed with unlucky 30-50 years olds like my relative. (Still on a ventilator, but now stable. Doctors not talking about his chances.)
--AS
Where there is life, there is hope, and the ICU team would not be continuing if there was no chance. Best wishes.
ICU is very labour intensive, and of a particular skill set so ICU surge capacity is anaesthesia and operating theatre staff. While ICU is over capacity, it will be very hard for normal surgical activity to resume.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
Ardern is a good counter-example, and I did think of it before posting.
Ardern took a gamble in a Coalition with NZ First, but there was no major downside to her gamble. (Of course, she later won the Worldwide Covid Lottery, and so it all worked out peachy for her & NZ Labour).
By contrast, as @noneoftheabove has articulated, there are major downsides for SKS in a coalition with the SNP, depending on how it actually pans out.
For SKS, it really comes down to whether he thinks he is a nimble enough politician to beat Sturgeon & Co in Scotland in the referendum he will have to run as the price of support (probably, a referendum largely on the SNP's terms).
If not, SKS will end up with the blame for the loss of Scotland (fair or not) and the creation of a largely Tory rUK.
Is SKS that nimble? Is he as nimble as Nicola? Or Jacinda, for that matter?
SKS is a serious-minded plodder, not a graceful dancer.
A good analysis of Starmer's capabilities and his dilemma. I remain unconvinced that the Conservatives can weather the forthcoming economic storm. I may of course be completely wrong and Philip Thompson's expectation of a post-Brexit, post- pandemic boom may indeed come to pass. I don't see how this happens, but my economic knowledge stopped at A level (and neither did I achieve a fantastic grade).
A minority government would most likely be a poisoned chalice for Starmer. So would one with even a small majority. Our system hates governments without working majorities. We've had five such governments since 1945: 1950-1, 1964-6, 1974-9, 1992-7 and 2017-9. Governments tend to be re-elected in this country, but in only one of those did the PM lead his party to victory at the following election.
Governments without a working majority always have the smell of death about them. Their MPs are harassed; they can't get the more difficult parts of their agenda through; foreign governments and the media despise them; and everybody knows they're only there till a better alternative comes along.
(It was Gordon Brown's unique achievement to run such a government even with a healthy overall majority).
I suspect that a Labour led minority government or coalition, probably the former, would go for some low hanging fruit to prove popular. A year or so later, going for a second GE, much as Wilson did in 66.l
Certainly possible, but that relies on:
a) there being lots of low hanging fruit b) Starmer being able to identify it c) the Conservatives not being able to derail him d) events being benign e) cranky bankbenchers not getting in his way.
Possible, but I would bet against it.
I just don't think Starmer is either adept as Wilson was, and Wilson had backbenchers who were less independent back then, and didn't have the 24-hour media to contend with.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Only Cameron made them fit for office once more.
And Osborne. His contribution was immense.
He was the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened.
An immense contribution.
Cameron and Osborne failed to seal the deal as Thatcher and Howe did in 1979.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
Probably true but how is going to persuade Johnson to move him out of the poisoned chalice to say Foreign office?
Granita style deal. No leadership challenge if Johnson fucks the fuck off at the end of his second term.
Those congratulating BoZo on his second term seem to be making the heroic assumption that all those who voted "to get Brexit done" will be thanking him for the outcome.
I am sure this has been asked before so forgive me asking again but I don't remember the answers.
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can their be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
You wouldn’t want them standing - they would be on the other side of the negotiating table from parliament
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
Yes, I totally understand that, Phil. The issue is whether they could sell that in Scotland to the entirety of their current voting coalition, a large part of which has been taken from Labour. If you say that Scottish independence is necessary to protect Scotland from Tory governments in Westminster, working with the Tories at Westminster to bring down a Labour government may not be the smartest thing to do.
The paradox here is that Labour need to prevent independence far more so than the conservatives
The further paradox is that a Unionist win in Sindy ref is probably more likely under a Labour Westminster government than a Tory one, particularly one led by the loathed Johnson.
That is why Starmer will support PR. With Scotland gone, it's Labour's only hope of being in power (in a coalition or minority government). All parties (including Reform) will be in support of PR except the Tories who will strive to cling onto absolute power with only 40% of the vote. The other 60% will eventually prevail.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Preferably without a referendum. So it would have to be in the manifestos of all the political parties (except the Tories of course). A Starmer led government would then have the mandate to implement PR.
The Reform party is in favour of PR (naturally) but even the SNP are to their credit - even though they profit greatly from FPTP.
If its in the Labour manifesto then fine. Seems unlikely imo.
It was in Justin Trudeau's manifesto in 2015. I think it was a solemn pledge of the Canadian Liberals.
There is a very good reason why proportional representation never actually happens, even if it is in manifestos.
(EDIT, And of course he benefitted from his decision to renege on the promise in the very next election, where he lost the popular vote but won a majority of seats).
Even if in manifesto's I think changes like this should still require a referendum. I would no more have supported leaving the eu just because someone had that in their manifesto and had a majority.
There will certainly be many that vote for these parties but don't support PR
If the Tories lose their majority in 2024, then even if they are largest party still it is difficult to see how they would remain in power.
The SNP, the LDs, the Greens, Plaid, the SDLP and the Alliance would all almost certainly support a Starmer premiership. It is also likely now the DUP would prefer a softer Brexit under Starmer more closely aligned to the single market and customs union for the whole UK than the border in the Irish Sea they now have under Boris.
So basically to be relected Boris and the Tories have to win another majority
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Only Cameron made them fit for office once more.
And Osborne. His contribution was immense.
He was the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened.
An immense contribution.
Cameron and Osborne failed to seal the deal as Thatcher and Howe did in 1979.
Thatcher gained 62 seats. Cameron/Osborne gained 97. Different starting points.
Pfizer vaccine found to give strong immune response to new Covid variants
People who have received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine have been found to have strong T-cell responses against the Kent and South African variants of Covid, suggesting that the vaccine will continue to protect against serious disease in the coming months.
I think this will be the endgame. Vaccination, infection, will have given the population of the world enough exposure to this coronavirus that serious disease will largely be prevented but not transmission overall. My (exceedingly amateur) view is that the global drop in cases over the last five weeks reflects the virus having picked off the low hanging fruit consisting of those with no immunity at all and is struggling to find more. The Indian consensus is that their almost miraculous recovery is down to the number of pathogens the Indian population is exposed to compared to us in the west.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
What an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Putting Williamson or the like in the Treasury would be economic sabotage on a grand scale, tantamount to treason.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
I've a long history of support for PR and a tacit acceptance of a freelance effort to support tactical voting in Broxtowe and Norfol North (Norman Lamb). But there are real problems in getting overt deals.
First, both parties rule them out and you can be expelled from both for supporting them (several LibDems were expelled for supporting me in my marginal). That needs to be softened for any progress at all.
Second, constituency parties see standing in GEs as their raison d'etre, and fiercely resist being told not to bother.
Third, the landscape keeps shifting - the main change in polls since the election is LD->Lab, which won't help the LD challenge in their marginals. The reverse happens too as fortunes ebb and flow.
Fourth, voters don't follow hints wholesale. In the borough elections in my ward where the parties stood less than full slates, activists actively encouraged people to vote for both of us. I estimate that only about 2/3 of Lab voters complied, and only about half the LD voters - others simply declined to cast their second vote.
Fifth, there is a long history of campaign leaflets saying "Winning here" and "Only we can win" in utterly hopeless seats (cf. Uxbridge 2019, where the LibDems campaigned on that basis from a starting point of... 3.9%, and indeed took 2.4% off Labour's challenge to Johnson, who had been mildly vulnerable with just a 5% swing needed for Labour).
It can work but it needs a strong lead from the centre - a formal pact. Obviously concentrating activists in the most winnable seats always happens, but it's not nearly as effective.
The Plaid Cymru, LibDem, Green coalition election pact in 2019 in Wales is a good example of a wholly destructive pact.
Three parties, with almost nothing in common, create an election pact. It looks cynical (although my recollection is LibDems on pb.com were whooping when it was announced).
Supporters of the Unionist parties were outraged at being asked to vote for separatists (the LibDem PPC in Pontypridd, even left the party because of the pact and stood as an Independent). Separatists were outraged at being asked to vote for parties that they fundamentally disagreed with.
I suspect the pact actually managed to make a net loss of votes for all three parties -- whatever, it did not change a single election result in Wales.
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
What an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Putting Williamson or the like in the Treasury would be economic sabotage on a grand scale, tantamount to treason.
Even worse it would lead to you losing the election and losing office. Even keeping him in the cabinet is a risk in that regard.
I think Mike is looking at this from the wrong direction. It is an advantage for the Tories to be seen as capable of winning a majority. It is a disadvantage for Labour to be seen as being incapable of winning without the support of the SNP.
And on the Lib Dems. It's worth remembering that four of their 11 seats are in Scotland. I mean, it would be a very Lib Dem thing to do, but throwing your lot in with the SNP might not be the smartest of moves.
1) It’s a *net* loss of 47 seats that would be needed to deprive the Tories of their majority. This may be harder than it seems. Quite a number of seats in the North and Wales have been trending Tory over time and may still fall even if the national trend flows against them.
2) Brown has very foolishly set a precedent that the PM is the PM is the PM. That was not (contrary to the inept advice of O’Donnell) the case previously, where it was accepted and had been accepted since 1929 that an incumbent government that came a clear second in the seat count should resign office. This precedent makes a minority government taking power much harder. It means that Johnson can squat like a Gordon gargoyle in Number 10 and to remove him there needs to be a positive vote in the House for an alternative.
So if Starmer is second in terms of seats he needs a deal for positive support, which will be much harder than if he tops the chart in terms of seats and just needs to ask everyone to abstain.
That increases the calculation to around 80 net gains for Labour.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
It was interesting on Euro news this morning that the forthcoming Catalonia election is seeing a collapse in support for parties seeking independence, with those interviewed saying covid has relegated independence as an issue and the result is likely to be welcomed in Madrid
Looking at the most recent polls - the pro-independence parties look very likley to win with around 72 seats . Of course the polls could be wrong.
I have just watched some of the questions at PMQs. I used to occasionally teach presentation skills, and I know I am biased against Johnson, but HOW can anyone think he is a great orator is completely beyond me. It must be the case that you really can fool some of the people all of the time. His presentation skills, even discounting his ludicrous scruffy appearance are quite dreadful. Someone should at least coach him on how to er and um less. That would be a small improvement. He really is a national embarrassment.
On topic a weaker Tory government with a much smaller majority seems the most likely outcome of the next general election to me. I don't see Boris as politically inept as Brown, not even close, and SKS is no Cameron. Its not impossible that they may even keep a similar majority. I think that is about as likely as them losing power.
The advantages of incumbency in the UK are becoming dangerously high making switches of government rare events based on major changes. Whilst its possible that the wheels could come off in a post pandemic world I am not seeing that kind of turning point at the moment.
Its a point I have made before but in the first election I could vote in 1979 there was a change of government. I was a second year law student. By the time the government changed again I was 36, married with kids and a partner in a law firm. By the time it changed again I was 49 and had been an advocate for 10 years. That government is still in power and might well see me to retirement. 3 changes in an adult's working life (if you include being a student). These are rare events and they are getting rarer.
The first election I remember was 1945..... massive change. Then 50 & 51, change again. There wasn't another until 1964, and in 1979 people like me were looking at each other and wondering if we'd ever see the end of the Tories. Then came 64/66, and then the surprise of 1970. Then Heath managed to lose in 1970, and the third party's vote rose.
TES ran an online poll to get the views of teachers on the performance of the DfE. They had eight thousand responses, which is as near as bugger it 1% of the education workforce. Probably a majority of them were teachers, although many other school staff read the TES as well (as it’s about the only reliable resource for finding out what’s happening in education - and that includes DfE announcements).
Now normally I would of course dismiss such polls as bollocks, as when exploitative business owner with links to UNITE unemployed carer and ordinary person Rachael from Swindon runs a similar poll and finds 92% of people still think the Jezaster is awesome.
But here is one thing that did strike me.
Of those 8,000 respondents not a single one based in England has complete confidence in the DfE. Not ONE.
Only 4% have even *reasonable* confidence.
Now, such polling being self selecting, to put too much weight on it would be as foolish and dishonest a use of statistics as Nick Gibb trying to justify his hamfisted bullying to keep open schools.
But how the actual fuck did the DfE manage to mess things up so badly that in a large sample size of education professionals of all grades not a single person believes they know what they’re doing?
That tells me that the DfE is in for a very nasty ride. It might even have to close over this.
Good riddance, admittedly, as long as the inept fools working in it are sacked and not redeployed to ruin other departments.
As others have said, Keir’s route to power is treacherous.
He definitely needs a deal with the Lib Dems - even five more seats may make the difference! - AND he needs a recovery in Scotland.
In fact, all roads leads to Scotland.
There ought to be a Lab-Lib ticket even for the upcoming Scottish vote, both to maximise chances at Holyrood and as a dress rehearsal for the GE.
Starmer could become PM without a single extra Scottish seat with SNP confidence and supply provided he takes back enough Tory seats in England and Wales to get a hung Parliament.
To get a Labour majority, or even a Labour and LD deal, then yes he needs to retake seats in Scotland from the SNP
Good header. It shows that despite LibDems only being on 6 or 7% in national polls what really matters is what their support is like in their key Con "winnable" seats.
Would be an interesting header: How many key "winnable" seats do they actually have now post Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson?
Here are the 20 most marginal Con/LD seats. I think LDs could win at least half of them now that Corbyn has gone and many traditional Tories are dissatisfied with Johnson. They would then have 20+ seats which could make a difference to a Labour minority government.
I think that Starmer would want a strong candidate and campaign in Golders Green, to show a clear line against antisemitism.
Yes. Perhaps the LDs will "give" Labour Golders Green even though the LDs were in second place last time as long as Labour do not campaign in the other 19 marginals, or even covertly help deliver tactical votes.
Do we think Sunak rather than Johnson might hold some of these? Both are Brexiteers of course, but Sunak was not up front in the campaign.
Sunak needs to be either Prime Minister or in Cabinet, but out of the Treasury before the economic ramifications become evident, and as soon as possible. He does not want the blame for what comes next, best to hang that on some hapless fallguy like Williamson.
What an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Putting Williamson or the like in the Treasury would be economic sabotage on a grand scale, tantamount to treason.
Isn't it the traditional view that people vote for Labour in good economic times as they think we can afford to be generous. Then after they have (or portrayed to have) messed up the economy then the Tories get back in.
After the Covid shock were are not in a good economic position. Will people feel like they can afford to be generous and let Labour have a go? I'm not convinced.
The counter-argument would be that the Tories will have been in power for 14 years by the next election. All governments eventually lose.
While it is true that, if we end up in a hung Parliament Labour will find it easier to form a government, the precedent of the 2015 GE campaign is that this is politically an albatross around Labour's neck.
The voters will be told that the choice at the election is not between a majority Tory government or a majority Labour government, but between a strong and stable Tory majority government or Labour's coalition of chaos led from Holyrood.
This is why a resurgence in Scotland is so crucial to Labour's hopes at Westminster. It's not because, numerically, they need Scottish seats. They can win enough English seats. It's because it kills off the political argument of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
A difference between then and now, though, could be that perceptions of Nicola Sturgeon in England have been changed by the pandemic. The bigger question is whether the SNP actually would prop up a Labour minority government. If it does and the government is successful, the SNP loses a significant calling card for independence.
So you expect the SNP to voluntarily play nice, and to voluntarily give away their calling card? You don't see the problem in that plan?
The SNP as the scorpion 🦂 has no reason to make a success of a minority Labour frog 🐸 government.
The SNP has every incentive to allow a Labour PM to be in office but for Westminster to be a catastrophe. They are agents of chaos, they have no incentive or desire to make your Westminster government work.
It was interesting on Euro news this morning that the forthcoming Catalonia election is seeing a collapse in support for parties seeking independence, with those interviewed saying covid has relegated independence as an issue and the result is likely to be welcomed in Madrid
Looking at the most recent polls - the pro-independence parties look very likley to win with around 72 seats . Of course the polls could be wrong.
Victoria Australia thinks it can suppress B117 in 5 days. From a complete lockdown within 12 hours from its initial case three weeks later Guernsey would suggest not (still ~300 cases).
Australia have screwed up not prioritising the vaccine, resting on their laurels of having contained the virus.
Australia should have invested in domestic manufacturing of the vaccine - potentially to supply themselves and New Zealand - and initiated rollout ASAP while social lockdowns and mixing weren't required. These sorts of stop-start lockdowns are going to be inevitable for them until the vaccine rollout occurs.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
There were siren voices among the Conservatives who said 1997 would be a good election to lose. Too long in government, need a break to refresh.
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
Not fools. 1997 Tories were rotten and broken. They were right to lose power then.
Only Cameron made them fit for office once more.
And Osborne. His contribution was immense.
He was the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened.
An immense contribution.
Cameron and Osborne failed to seal the deal as Thatcher and Howe did in 1979.
Thatcher gained 62 seats. Cameron/Osborne gained 97. Different starting points.
1979 Lab -2.3%, Con +8.1% 2010 Lab -6.2%, Con +3.7%
1. Tories retain their majority. 80 seats is a big cushion. But...Covid. Boris got the jab acquisition and roll-out right, so those who put him in with that majority - the older generation - may give him a thank you vote for that. But tax rises to pay for Covid may prove painful. Not a given this far out, but more likely than
2. Labour gain an outright majority. It's going to need them to engage in Battle Royale. 15 months into this Government, no real sign of that. No Big Ideas yet. Frankly, no little ones either. A Micawber Opposition, waiting for something to come up. That something is likely to be
3. Coalition government. Ugh. I mean, really ugh - a deeply unwelcome prospect. It is the first choice of very few. Nationalists maybe - who want to use the confusion as cover for departure from the UK. So just a means to an end, rather than a desired outcome in its own right. I'm not sure even the LibDems would go "Yippee - our 7 MPs can taste power again!"
The English especially have an aversion to weak governments. Even weak (initially) majority Governments are hated and punished - John Major was hammered, James Callaghan before that. At regional and local level, coalitions barely make it to the next electoral test. Hell, Scotland put in place a majority SNP regime even though the system was designed to make that impossible. The default setting is a preference for strong, stable government that can implement a voter-approved manifesto.
So if we get to the next election and the polls show we are headed for a messy coalition - with re-runs of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket ads - I fully expect the Tories to do better from an aversion to Coalition than Labour. Just because the previous election was so much about "get Brexit done", and that has been delivered. A Labour majority is such a huge thing to deliver. The Tories post poll tax and Maggie were not in a great place, but still stayed in power when the other option was Kinnock. Many thought 1992 a shock Tory win - but I predicted the result to within an accuracy of 2 seats.
So my take is different to Mike.
Agree. Labour have a number of problems in forming a government. Everyone now knows that the old habit of voting LD because you wanted a nicer sort of Tory won't work and that the LDs are the party of the posh left who won't vote for the same party as their cleaner (who did vote Labour but now Tory).
So the centre right has nowhere to go but vote Tory. Unified votes win elections. Ask the SNP.
And then, assuming Labour can't win on its own, it can only win with SNP in its pocket. There aren't any other parties of size. The more likely that is, the more the centre reverts to no choice but Tory. So, the more likely it is that Labour will do well, the more the Tory vote will remain solid.
(The English centre right has had enough of the politics of NI, and I would not be surprised if it moves towards a sensible unionism: one called Great Britain, and a united Ireland. Brexit+EU+behaviour of NI parties+a more secular RoI=single Ireland makes sense. Nothing about that will encourage English Tories to see the DUP back in the driving seat.)
Even Michael Martin has shown reluctance about a United Ireland on the BBC this week as he knows a majoritarian approach in NI as opposed to powersharing will simply lead to loyalist paramilitary terrorism against direct rule from Dublin as there was IRA terrorism against direct rule from London.
Starmer cannot give up on Scotland. Therefore what he should do is decouple Scottish Labour from the UK party, and create a new Scottish party, with Unionism in its constitution, but that doesn't take its orders from 'London'. This will give a small moment of opportunity as Scottish voters listen to what the new, renamed party has to say. This opportunity is also open to the Tories, to the Lib Dems (except nobody would care), to a break away faction of the SNP (though obviously they'd have to live with death threats), and also more authentically to a completely new party.
Farage has a cheek trying to speak about Churchill. Churchill stood up to foreign fascist despots. Farage sucks up to them, and tries to emulated them. Along with Johnson Farage enthusiastically advanced Putin's foreign policy objective. Both would be despised by Churchill.
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
Ardern is a good counter-example, and I did think of it before posting.
Ardern took a gamble in a Coalition with NZ First, but there was no major downside to her gamble. (Of course, she later won the Worldwide Covid Lottery, and so it all worked out peachy for her & NZ Labour).
By contrast, as @noneoftheabove has articulated, there are major downsides for SKS in a coalition with the SNP, depending on how it actually pans out.
For SKS, it really comes down to whether he thinks he is a nimble enough politician to beat Sturgeon & Co in Scotland in the referendum he will have to run as the price of support (probably, a referendum largely on the SNP's terms).
If not, SKS will end up with the blame for the loss of Scotland (fair or not) and the creation of a largely Tory rUK.
Is SKS that nimble? Is he as nimble as Nicola? Or Jacinda, for that matter?
SKS is a serious-minded plodder, not a graceful dancer.
A good analysis of Starmer's capabilities and his dilemma. I remain unconvinced that the Conservatives can weather the forthcoming economic storm. I may of course be completely wrong and Philip Thompson's expectation of a post-Brexit, post- pandemic boom may indeed come to pass. I don't see how this happens, but my economic knowledge stopped at A level (and neither did I achieve a fantastic grade).
The Bank of England saying the UK is like a coiled spring ready to bounce back once restrictions are lifted
The question of course is when will the restrictions be lifted
I actually think the header is quite wrong & SKS does not want to deprive the Tories of a majority in 2024.
For the Labour Party, the very best thing is to win an absolute majority, of course. But, barring a huge improvement in their performance in Scotland, that is very, very unlikely, IMO.
Given that the options for SKS are
1. Deprive the Tories of a majority, and lead a minority Govt backed by an unstable hodge-podge of a coalition. This will lead to squabbling chaos and probable collapse in short order.
2. Leave the Tories in power with a majority of ~ 5 to deal with the mess, with the likelihood that within a year, it is the Tory Govt that will have collapsed in squabbling chaos. A second election in quick succession is much more likely to deliver what SKS wants, which is a Labour majority.
Surely, SKS needs option 2.
Too risky. We've seen how governments can limp on for a long time, even when they repeal FTPA I bet.
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
Ardern is a good counter-example, and I did think of it before posting.
Ardern took a gamble in a Coalition with NZ First, but there was no major downside to her gamble. (Of course, she later won the Worldwide Covid Lottery, and so it all worked out peachy for her & NZ Labour).
By contrast, as @noneoftheabove has articulated, there are major downsides for SKS in a coalition with the SNP, depending on how it actually pans out.
For SKS, it really comes down to whether he thinks he is a nimble enough politician to beat Sturgeon & Co in Scotland in the referendum he will have to run as the price of support (probably, a referendum largely on the SNP's terms).
If not, SKS will end up with the blame for the loss of Scotland (fair or not) and the creation of a largely Tory rUK.
Is SKS that nimble? Is he as nimble as Nicola? Or Jacinda, for that matter?
SKS is a serious-minded plodder, not a graceful dancer.
A good analysis of Starmer's capabilities and his dilemma. I remain unconvinced that the Conservatives can weather the forthcoming economic storm. I may of course be completely wrong and Philip Thompson's expectation of a post-Brexit, post- pandemic boom may indeed come to pass. I don't see how this happens, but my economic knowledge stopped at A level (and neither did I achieve a fantastic grade).
This is going to be an explosive year or two. Boom and bust on steroids.
There are many businesses and individuals under immense stress and struggling to make ends meet.
But then there are also many, many people who've made a bundle of savings and are cash rich after the past year with a lot of pent-up demand - and businesses waiting to capitalise on that.
Businesses that need cash and customers with cash to spend is an interesting combination. That's why I'm pretty confident that there will be what you could call a rather ugly boom - big winners and big losers simultaneously.
Hopefully those who lose their jobs through the hardship etc are able to get something with one of the winners.
I have just watched some of the questions at PMQs. I used to occasionally teach presentation skills, and I know I am biased against Johnson, but HOW can anyone think he is a great orator is completely beyond me. It must be the case that you really can fool some of the people all of the time. His presentation skills, even discounting his ludicrous scruffy appearance are quite dreadful. Someone should at least coach him on how to er and um less. That would be a small improvement. He really is a national embarrassment.
Well, err ... I have ... um bashed Labour thrice.
I ... sent the jolly old Labour party packing in the Mayorality for ... um, err, um, let me see, ah yes ... London.
Then, I ... umm, got the old ... umm ... golden whiffle stick out again last year, no err year before last .. um, 2019, I mean.
Gosh, by Jove, err, you ... umm don't change an ... err, arf ... bally winning game.
Comments
What do people think is the protocol if Starmer is in place as PM and Johnson is only short a majority because of SNP seats, if the Scots win an Independence referendum? I assume it triggers a vote of No Confidence and a GE? But with the fixed term Parliament act in place can their be a change of Government without a GE?
And if the Scots win independence in this Parliament, say 6 months prior to a GE so without sufficient time to enact it in the current term, would they stand for election in 2024 knowing they were only going to be in Parliament for a few months?
The graph assumes a constant prevalence of Covid-19, which in turn would presumably mean some relaxations of restrictions.
Point 2: why not? they'd still be part of the UK and have business to transact and constituents to represent on non-devolved matters. Quite apart from forestalling any monkey business that might happen if they were off the scene.
Starmer’s only route to power is through Scotland, he needs to get everyone there campaigning hard for the next three years
If it’s looking like an SNP-led coalition is likely, everywhere else will vote Tory, as they did in 2015. Any Parliament that can’t form a majority without SNP support, will quickly be dissolved and another election take place.
Fable of wind and sun springs to mind.
So the centre right has nowhere to go but vote Tory. Unified votes win elections. Ask the SNP.
And then, assuming Labour can't win on its own, it can only win with SNP in its pocket. There aren't any other parties of size. The more likely that is, the more the centre reverts to no choice but Tory. So, the more likely it is that Labour will do well, the more the Tory vote will remain solid.
(The English centre right has had enough of the politics of NI, and I would not be surprised if it moves towards a sensible unionism: one called Great Britain, and a united Ireland. Brexit+EU+behaviour of NI parties+a more secular RoI=single Ireland makes sense. Nothing about that will encourage English Tories to see the DUP back in the driving seat.)
If he did, having been supported into government of the UK by the SNP, there'd be fury in the rest of the UK, and rightly so.
If he didn't, would the SNP back him to lead the UK?
This is just a variant on the 'good election to lose' argument, but winning is almost always better. You have so many more options to work with even in a chaotic win, and you can turn things around. Look at Ardern.
If the Tories eke a win who is to say Labour dont fall to infighting?
2) Indeed there would. The centre right will make sure it doesn't happen
3) If it made it harder for England, Yes.
Wanting the pound as the non formal currency in Scotland is a loud shout of:
"We don't believe our own rhetoric, and we suspect the voters don't either".
If you are serious about independence, currency is central. The only choices are the 'Scottish Dollar' (formal) or the Euro (informal). Both are hard but makes the break clear. keeping the link with the pound says: There's a bank of last resort and it isn't either in Edinburgh or the EU. I wonder where it can be....?
It should be a condition of independence discussions, made clear before a referendum, along with a few other tricky issues.
It ought also to be noted that Xinjiang is China's biggest producer of polysilicon thanks to its abundance of cheap coal - the production process is highly energy intensive.
Fears over China’s Muslim forced labor loom over EU solar power
https://www.politico.eu/article/xinjiang-china-polysilicon-solar-energy-europe/
Nearly every solar power panel sold in the European Union has its origins in China’s oppressed Xinjiang region.
The solar industry and Brussels lawmakers argue Europe’s renewable energy push should not come at a human cost amid long-standing international concern over reports China has detained 1 million people with Muslim backgrounds in camps in Xinjiang and is putting them to work.
“Everybody knows what’s going on in China, and when facilities are based there you have to accept that there’s a high possibility that forced labor will be used,” said Milan Nitzschke, president of EU ProSun, an alliance of solar businesses seeking to promote sustainable, solar manufacturing based in the EU....
Similarly for Labour in 2010. Let the other lot deal with the pain from the Global Crash, some said.
These people were fools- of course it's better to have some power than none.
They can provide confidence and supply to Labour but nothing more than that. It would then be like 2017-2019 on steroids as any English votes they can abstain on and the Opposition will have a majority.
What's Labour going to do? Say that the Scottish MPs need to vote on English matters? How will they enforce that?
They won't ever need to vote with the Tories - they can simply abstain, say it's nothing to do with Scotland, sit back and watch the chaos burn.
The Reform party is in favour of PR (naturally) but even the SNP are to their credit - even though they profit greatly from FPTP.
Only Cameron made them fit for office once more.
Ardern took a gamble in a Coalition with NZ First, but there was no major downside to her gamble. (Of course, she later won the Worldwide Covid Lottery, and so it all worked out peachy for her & NZ Labour).
By contrast, as @noneoftheabove has articulated, there are major downsides for SKS in a coalition with the SNP, depending on how it actually pans out.
For SKS, it really comes down to whether he thinks he is a nimble enough politician to beat Sturgeon & Co in Scotland in the referendum he will have to run as the price of support (probably, a referendum largely on the SNP's terms).
If not, SKS will end up with the blame for the loss of Scotland (fair or not) and the creation of a largely Tory rUK.
Is SKS that nimble? Is he as nimble as Nicola? Or Jacinda, for that matter?
SKS is a serious-minded plodder, not a graceful dancer.
The betting suggests that Johnson's exit date as party leader will be 2024+ (1.78 on Betfair).
I think Johnson will stand in 2024. I dont subscribe to the view that he will gently drift into retirement in a year or so and go and earn the big money. Maybe half way through a second term.
Think of all the devolved issues the SNP have a policy of not voting on: health, education etc
England will be without a functional government. Which works for the SNP. Are Labour going to spend five years in office never touching health or education? Never reforming the NHS? Or are they going to buy the SNP or Tory support to get NHS reforms through?
It's not simply enough to be not Tories. Cameron had to bring Clegg into the tent, into the quad, but that's not the SNPs ambition.
ICU admissions will be the limiting factor -- as indeed has been predicted right from the beginning of the pandemic -- and its reduction by only 0.8 times vaccine effectiveness once groups 1-9 are completely done shows that vaccinating over 50s doesn't get us out of the woods. I have long thought that the trickiest period, politically, will be when deaths are right down (which I don't expect to happen as fast as Max and Robert do) but the hospitals still packed with unlucky 30-50 years olds like my relative. (Still on a ventilator, but now stable. Doctors not talking about his chances.)
--AS
1 Apart from the fact that he scrubs up well on Insta, what do any of us know about him? Go on- tell me about a speech he's given, or even what he sounds like. He's still something of a blank sheet newbie.
2 There are some pointers that, since pressing the initial furlough button, he's had a bad crisis. I get why he wants business as usual, but his pressing for reopening made the autumn-winter wave worse than it could have been. And I don't think he's denied getting Covid nutters in to talk to the PM.
3 Everyone in the cabinet- even sweet little Matty H- is tied to Boris's Brexit. Which will either be seen to be working well in 2024, or it won't. And that elephant in the room is still up in the air.
1) The loss of votes attracted by Corbyn's promises - students and Waspi women for example.
2) Incumbency among the new Conservative MPs.
First, both parties rule them out and you can be expelled from both for supporting them (several LibDems were expelled for supporting me in my marginal). That needs to be softened for any progress at all.
Second, constituency parties see standing in GEs as their raison d'etre, and fiercely resist being told not to bother.
Third, the landscape keeps shifting - the main change in polls since the election is LD->Lab, which won't help the LD challenge in their marginals. The reverse happens too as fortunes ebb and flow.
Fourth, voters don't follow hints wholesale. In the borough elections in my ward where the parties stood less than full slates, activists actively encouraged people to vote for both of us. I estimate that only about 2/3 of Lab voters complied, and only about half the LD voters - others simply declined to cast their second vote.
Fifth, there is a long history of campaign leaflets saying "Winning here" and "Only we can win" in utterly hopeless seats (cf. Uxbridge 2019, where the LibDems campaigned on that basis from a starting point of... 3.9%, and indeed took 2.4% off Labour's challenge to Johnson, who had been mildly vulnerable with just a 5% swing needed for Labour).
It can work but it needs a strong lead from the centre - a formal pact. Obviously concentrating activists in the most winnable seats always happens, but it's not nearly as effective.
There is a very good reason why proportional representation never actually happens, even if it is in manifestos.
(EDIT, And of course he benefitted from his decision to renege on the promise in the very next election, where he lost the popular vote but won a majority of seats).
The advantages of incumbency in the UK are becoming dangerously high making switches of government rare events based on major changes. Whilst its possible that the wheels could come off in a post pandemic world I am not seeing that kind of turning point at the moment.
Its a point I have made before but in the first election I could vote in 1979 there was a change of government. I was a second year law student. By the time the government changed again I was 36, married with kids and a partner in a law firm. By the time it changed again I was 49 and had been an advocate for 10 years. That government is still in power and might well see me to retirement. 3 changes in an adult's working life (if you include being a student). These are rare events and they are getting rarer.
ICU is very labour intensive, and of a particular skill set so ICU surge capacity is anaesthesia and operating theatre staff. While ICU is over capacity, it will be very hard for normal surgical activity to resume.
a) there being lots of low hanging fruit
b) Starmer being able to identify it
c) the Conservatives not being able to derail him
d) events being benign
e) cranky bankbenchers not getting in his way.
Possible, but I would bet against it.
I just don't think Starmer is either adept as Wilson was, and Wilson had backbenchers who were less independent back then, and didn't have the 24-hour media to contend with.
An immense contribution.
Cameron and Osborne failed to seal the deal as Thatcher and Howe did in 1979.
I do not share that view...
There will certainly be many that vote for these parties but don't support PR
If the Tories lose their majority in 2024, then even if they are largest party still it is difficult to see how they would remain in power.
The SNP, the LDs, the Greens, Plaid, the SDLP and the Alliance would all almost certainly support a Starmer premiership. It is also likely now the DUP would prefer a softer Brexit under Starmer more closely aligned to the single market and customs union for the whole UK than the border in the Irish Sea they now have under Boris.
So basically to be relected Boris and the Tories have to win another majority
Putting Williamson or the like in the Treasury would be economic sabotage on a grand scale, tantamount to treason.
Three parties, with almost nothing in common, create an election pact. It looks cynical (although my recollection is LibDems on pb.com were whooping when it was announced).
Supporters of the Unionist parties were outraged at being asked to vote for separatists (the LibDem PPC in Pontypridd, even left the party because of the pact and stood as an Independent). Separatists were outraged at being asked to vote for parties that they fundamentally disagreed with.
I suspect the pact actually managed to make a net loss of votes for all three parties -- whatever, it did not change a single election result in Wales.
And on the Lib Dems. It's worth remembering that four of their 11 seats are in Scotland. I mean, it would be a very Lib Dem thing to do, but throwing your lot in with the SNP might not be the smartest of moves.
He definitely needs a deal with the Lib Dems - even five more seats may make the difference! - AND he needs a recovery in Scotland.
In fact, all roads leads to Scotland.
There ought to be a Lab-Lib ticket even for the upcoming Scottish vote, both to maximise chances at Holyrood and as a dress rehearsal for the GE.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1360165148854476801?s=20
To get a Labour majority, or even a Labour and LD deal, then yes he needs to retake seats in Scotland from the SNP
After the Covid shock were are not in a good economic position. Will people feel like they can afford to be generous and let Labour have a go? I'm not convinced.
The counter-argument would be that the Tories will have been in power for 14 years by the next election. All governments eventually lose.
2010 Lab -6.2%, Con +3.7%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
In 1979 the Conservatives won, in 2010 Labour lost.
Take away Brown's trip to Rochdale in 2010 and Cameron might not have become PM.
It is very popular in NZ where we have learned how to play/game PR systems after 20 years of practice.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1360165652519137281?s=20
The question of course is when will the restrictions be lifted
There are many businesses and individuals under immense stress and struggling to make ends meet.
But then there are also many, many people who've made a bundle of savings and are cash rich after the past year with a lot of pent-up demand - and businesses waiting to capitalise on that.
Businesses that need cash and customers with cash to spend is an interesting combination. That's why I'm pretty confident that there will be what you could call a rather ugly boom - big winners and big losers simultaneously.
Hopefully those who lose their jobs through the hardship etc are able to get something with one of the winners.
I ... sent the jolly old Labour party packing in the Mayorality for ... um, err, um, let me see, ah yes ... London.
Then, I ... umm, got the old ... umm ... golden whiffle stick out again last year, no err year before last .. um, 2019, I mean.
Gosh, by Jove, err, you ... umm don't change an ... err, arf ... bally winning game.