Labour needs a listening exercise but from my experience of working class life I think the middle class left think it’s all food banks and poverty. That’s not the experience of most working class people. They own their houses and go on nice holidays. Lab doesn’t speak to them.
If the middle class left had realised this a decade ago, there’d never have been a referendum
The best way to secure the Union - should Perfidious Posh so desire - is to have this vote now and win it. Remain is clear favourite if it happens next year. If it's denied, however, the grievance will build and will look justified.
One unexamined aspect of the prospect of IndyRef2 is that Johnson will 100% think he can win it. So for him there is only an upside to having one.
That's exactly what Cameron thought re: Brexit.
Indeed he was so convinced that he made that clear to all the EU leaders who then had no reason to offer him anything in his renegotiation!
I presume cutting down the trees has had quite a political impact.
A LD/Green administration would be good. Don’t know if that’s possible, maybe with support from an independent or two?
Remember they also had a referendum to change to a committee system. They could share the chairs out between them - Lib Dems take finance, Greens take environment,etc.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled that the British government had no power to block a referendum, then it would take place. There would be no question of police or troops stopping people from voting.
If the Supreme Court ruled against such a referendum taking place, then local authorities would have every reason to boycott it, if Holyrood pressed ahead with it regardless.
Sigh.
Holyrood couldn’t ‘press ahead with it regardless.’ It would be a criminal offence to do so. And as the LA would become complicit in the crime under such a scenario, they would refuse to hold one.
Ultimately, the Scottish Parliament exists because of laws passed at Westminster and within the constitutional framework of the UK, whether the SNP like that or not. It can’t tear up those laws to suit their emotional needs without risking its own right to exist.
I like a lot of David Herdson's pieces but I have to admit I completely disagree on this. Referendums on national independence ought to be understood as a once in a generation idea. After all they are not things that can be easily undone. There was a referendum on Scottish independence less than seven years ago so why would it be sensible to have another one now? Brexit? Well yes a clear majority in Scotland voted to remain in the EU but still I would be looking for an overwhelming mandate to even countenance another vote on cessation at this stage. It's pretty obvious that the Scottish result has not provided that. As Neil Oliver said Scotland is split down the middle. Those who believe the SNP have a mandate should follow the logic of that. It means that you can have a referendum every time there is a pro independence majority in Holyrood. Just keep holding referendums until you get the right result. We ought to have more respect for the union and in fact more respect for Scotland. I feel very sorry for those like my brother who live in Scotland and have to deal with this rather than the bread and butter issues that ought to be debated. When will people start questioning the SNP’s patriotism? Yes, I’m serious. If you really care about Scotland why would you want to hold another inevitably divisive referendum just a few years after another very divisive referendum. How concerned are these fanatics with the wellbeing of Scotland’s economy and civic society?
Mentioning Harold Wilson is rather apt. A supposedly cunning political operator it was of course Wilson who brought the referendum into British politics. Not for any high minded reason but in order to resolve a problem within his own party. For all the abuse hurled at David Cameron he was following a precedent already set. He also didn’t realise that many people had seen the same trick pulled before and wouldn’t be persuaded.
I agree that the thorny choices faced by an independent Scotland should be set out clearly in advance but seems absurd when the current prime minister was front and centre of the shallow Brexit campaign. Is he going to do a mea culpa over the lack of detail presented to people in 2016. How can a government that has denied the need for a border between the UK and Ireland start stressing the need for customs checks on the Tweed? Be careful about stoking allegations of bullying and project fear. As I’ve repeatedly said the UK government’s approach to the post-Brexit relationship with the EU has undermined the union between England and Scotland.
On Dominic Sandbrook, he makes a convincing case in his book Seasons in the Sun: Battle for Britain 1974-1979 that the worst Government we've ever had was not Callaghan's from 1976-1979 (which he views as the foothills of Thatcherism) but Wilson's of 1974-1976, which was absolutely dire.
I also tend to think this is one of his most partial accounts from a partial book, myself. He's a good prose stylist and storyteller, but veers right into polemic in many places, while still seeking the respectability of historian.
The other trick Johnson could play - and it would be totally cynical but almost certainly successful - is to put a minimum 40% threshold of the total population voting for Sindy before a change could take place, given how dramatic the changes would be.
1979 offers him a precedent.
That certainly settled things. Oh, you mean leave the festering, constitutional dungheap for some other poor sod to sort out?
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
Labour's success has cemented my view that in the UK at least, incumbency benefits during a crisis. Post that crisis Llafur's pandemic response will be called out, as will the Westminster Government's.
The UKIP collapse in the North Wales looks to have broken towards the Tories but not as overwhelming as in the North of England. So Con were able to flip Vale of Clwyd from -3 to +1 but nothing else. I was surprised Labour held Wrexham. By the end of the campaign, I expected them to hold Delyn and Clwyd South but not so easily.
In the South the swing has been towards Labour with Jane Hutt surviving yet again and CWPS and PP being close. Bridgend went in the other direction but their 2011-2016 Assembly majorities were inflated by Carwyn Jones in comparison to the Westminster elections. So it reversed back to being in the same league of Delyn, Clwyd South, Newport West.
Drakeford is boring. But I think you can benefit from a boring reassuring type of leader when you are in government and you get exposure by virtue of your institutional position. In opposition, you risk not to be noticed with this sort of leader.
For someone broadly of the centre left, the Welsh result has reassured me that Labour's failure nationally has more to do with a vaccine bounce than Starmer's lack of charisma. That is not to say an injection of enthusiasm wouldn't help.
Yesterday however, two posters deduced from the Welsh results that there was a desire for a Corbynista ticket, and that is what won it for Labour in Wales. They extrapolated from their erroneous theory that what Labour need nationally is a Marxist ticket of say Burgon and Long Bailey, and with it the keys to 10 Downing Street.
They are both wrong.
It’s just a misunderstanding of party politics.
It’s not Labour who see Burgon and Wrong Daily as a dream ticket. It’s the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
I am going to contradict myself (re Starmer) however I do want to give credit for Labour's Impressive result to both Andrew RT and Paul Davies.
Starmer may be mediocre,, Ross in Scotland may be mediocre, but RT is ******* abject.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
The Tories poll about 20% in Scotland which, based on the 2011 Census returns and the turmoil that has transpired in the intervening decade, probably represents the approximate percentage of the Scottish population that still identifies as British.
An Anglo-Welsh Britain might still be salvageable, but the Union with Scotland is over. Done. They've given up on us. It's just a matter of time now.
Rubbish, Unionist parties ie the Tories, Labour and LDs are currently winning about 52% combined in Scotland to just 48% combined for the SNP and Greens and Alba.
If the SNP and Greens and Alba were on about 60%+ combined you might have a point, they are not
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't give a flying fuck about the Union. They're just so many muddy middle voters who have yet to be persuaded that independence won't cost them money. This is demonstrated in, for example, Ayr, where a tiny slither of the (completely hopeless and pointless) Lib Dem vote acting tactically would've saved the Tory. They didn't bother. They let the SNP in, they knew that would strength Sturgeon's hand, they did it anyway.
So what if the Union is held together mainly by money, Scotland joined the Union in the first place in 1707 because it was bankrupted by the Darien scheme and needed funds from Westminster not out of any great love of England.
In 2014 it was hard headed fiscally sensible voters who are proud Scots but know the Union boosts the Scottish economy who got No to 55% (and mainly vote Labour and LD) not emotional British patriot Unionists who only amount to 25-30% of Scots and almost all vote Tory and mostly backed Brexit
That's a fair point. Scotland is basically an independent nation that decided to form a united partnership with England for fiscal and political reasons.
It worked. It allowed Scots to build the modern world and get much richer than they otherwise would have done, whilst retaining their laws and identity as Scots too - with British on top.
If I were Left of centre, I would now advocate proportional representation to stitch together an anti-Tory coalition. I see no prospect of a single party of the Left attaining critical mass.
But he doesn’t need to. He simply gets the Acting AG to say that Holyrood as a branch of the UK Government has no competency in this matter, and that therefore they cannot hold it as such a matter is decided by the UK as a whole.
That needs to be tested in court
Which is what they would be doing. And short of a real surprise decision that would undoubtedly see every member of the court’s bank accounts checked for strange payments, they would win.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
That is a better piece, and closer to setting out a path for the future.
An under-analysed part of Labour's jigsaw is the changing nature of the unions. When I was young, Labour was rescued from its left-wing activists by the moderate (in political terms) union 'barons', and the unions played a critical role in rescuing the party when it went astray in the 1980s - for example Blair couldn't have got his hugely symbolic Clause 4 change through without the deals he did behind the scenes with union leaders.
Nowadays, the principal union leaders are part of the problem - the likes of McCluskey and Ward are Corbynites through and through. The unions themselves have lost touch with the views of the 'ordinary worker' and this makes the challenge the party faces even more difficult to remedy.
I think Labour should focus on being the party of workers and jobs, but that also means supporting good businesses, backing r&d and education, and getting the balance right between focusing on welfare and those in work.
"Workers and jobs" (wasn't "hand and brain" the really old way of phrasing it?) has the advantage of explicitly talking to where Labour's votes actually are (from memory, the Conservative lead in votes is entirely accounted for by pensioners; 12 million pensioners and something like a 80:20 lead gives over 7 million votes- the score in 2019 was roughly 14 million to 10 million).
The other lesson from results so far is that, if you offer voters tangible delivery, it works in your favour. That needn't be vaccines; look at Houchen's win. Johnson, on the other hand, is pretty hopeless at that, and he can't get Kate Bingham to do everything.
So- how do you ensure that crims are actually caught, tried and locked up? Rather than having the government shahting a lot? How do you make the education system work better- or at all? The government is leaving lots of open goals, and there are all sorts of unexploded bombs ticking away. Boring, incremental stuff, and it won't inspire the activists. (Which is one of Dom C's points- though Boris is what you get if you turn Conservative activist's dreams into human form.) But it might just work. Oh, and we might smooth out some of the rough edges to make it easier to work, travel and trade. Nothing to worry about.
"Vote Labour: we all have work to do." Work in progress, but they can have that one.
Worth remembering in 2007 many were wondering if the Conservatives could survive given Labour had been in power for a decade yet Brown had a 10 point lead.
Labour's success has cemented my view that in the UK at least, incumbency benefits during a crisis. Post that crisis Llafur's pandemic response will be called out, as will the Westminster Government's.
The UKIP collapse in the North Wales looks to have broken towards the Tories but not as overwhelming as in the North of England. So Con were able to flip Vale of Clwyd from -3 to +1 but nothing else. I was surprised Labour held Wrexham. By the end of the campaign, I expected them to hold Delyn and Clwyd South but not so easily.
In the South the swing has been towards Labour with Jane Hutt surviving yet again and CWPS and PP being close. Bridgend went in the other direction but their 2011-2016 Assembly majorities were inflated by Carwyn Jones in comparison to the Westminster elections. So it reversed back to being in the same league of Delyn, Clwyd South, Newport West.
Drakeford is boring. But I think you can benefit from a boring reassuring type of leader when you are in government and you get exposure by virtue of your institutional position. In opposition, you risk not to be noticed with this sort of leader.
For someone broadly of the centre left, the Welsh result has reassured me that Labour's failure nationally has more to do with a vaccine bounce than Starmer's lack of charisma. That is not to say an injection of enthusiasm wouldn't help.
Yesterday however, two posters deduced from the Welsh results that there was a desire for a Corbynista ticket, and that is what won it for Labour in Wales. They extrapolated from their erroneous theory that what Labour need nationally is a Marxist ticket of say Burgon and Long Bailey, and with it the keys to 10 Downing Street.
They are both wrong.
It’s just a misunderstanding of party politics.
It’s not Labour who see Burgon and Wrong Daily as a dream ticket. It’s the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
I am going to contradict myself (re Starmer) however I do want to give credit for Labour's Impressive result to both Andrew RT and Paul Davies.
Starmer may be mediocre,, Ross in Scotland may be mediocre, but RT is ******* abject.
The Welsh Tories are currently on 26% on the constituency and list voteshare under RT, their highest ever Senedd voteshare and have also made 2 gains in the Senedd constituencies, Vale of Clwyd and Brecon and Radnor and no losses.
The other trick Johnson could play - and it would be totally cynical but almost certainly successful - is to put a minimum 40% threshold of the total population voting for Sindy before a change could take place, given how dramatic the changes would be.
1979 offers him a precedent.
That certainly settled things. Oh, you mean leave the festering, constitutional dungheap for some other poor sod to sort out?
For Johnson, that’s a success.
He is a big subscriber to ‘never put off till tomorrow what you can get out of dealing with altogether.’
And 1979 did settle things for 18 years and 3 PMs. He’d take that.
The best way to secure the Union - should Perfidious Posh so desire - is to have this vote now and win it. Remain is clear favourite if it happens next year. If it's denied, however, the grievance will build and will look justified.
One unexamined aspect of the prospect of IndyRef2 is that Johnson will 100% think he can win it. So for him there is only an upside to having one.
That's exactly what Cameron thought re: Brexit.
Agree. Neither Boris nor Nicola can afford to lose it. There is only one way that can be avoided, which is not to have it. So that must be one of the options for both of them. It is going to be a fascinating bit of politics and could last us some time.
Just noticed that Jess Philips is fav on BF for next lab leader at 4.1
I don’t think it takes much to shift that market, but you can definitely imagine her throwing her hat in the ring if they lose Batley & Spen. She’s a slightly more electable version of Angela Rayner I suppose. Gobbier but with added brains.
We need more Scots (visibly) in the UK Government - Gove doesn't count.
I can't see why Boris can't pluck out Tory MSPs from the Scottish Parliament for some ministerial portfolios.
Ruth sat in cabinet without portfolio.
Why? MSPs weren't elected to Westminster.
You'd need to give them peerages.
I don't think there's anything constitutionally that stops Boris appointing anyone to a ministerial position, including me or you incidentally, except precedent.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
The Tories poll about 20% in Scotland which, based on the 2011 Census returns and the turmoil that has transpired in the intervening decade, probably represents the approximate percentage of the Scottish population that still identifies as British.
An Anglo-Welsh Britain might still be salvageable, but the Union with Scotland is over. Done. They've given up on us. It's just a matter of time now.
Rubbish, Unionist parties ie the Tories, Labour and LDs are currently winning about 52% combined in Scotland to just 48% combined for the SNP and Greens and Alba.
If the SNP and Greens and Alba were on about 60%+ combined you might have a point, they are not
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't give a flying fuck about the Union. They're just so many muddy middle voters who have yet to be persuaded that independence won't cost them money. This is demonstrated in, for example, Ayr, where a tiny slither of the (completely hopeless and pointless) Lib Dem vote acting tactically would've saved the Tory. They didn't bother. They let the SNP in, they knew that would strength Sturgeon's hand, they did it anyway.
So what if the Union is held together mainly by money, Scotland joined the Union in the first place in 1707 because it was bankrupted by the Darien scheme and needed funds from Westminster not out of any great love of England.
In 2014 it was hard headed fiscally sensible voters who are proud Scots but know the Union boosts the Scottish economy who got No to 55% (and mainly vote Labour and LD) not emotional British patriot Unionists who only amount to 25-30% of Scots and almost all vote Tory and mostly backed Brexit
That's a fair point. Scotland is basically an independent nation that decided to form a united partnership with England for fiscal and political reasons.
It worked. It allowed Scots to build the modern world and get much richer than they otherwise would have done, whilst retaining their laws and identity as Scots too - with British on top.
English nationalists might begin to question why they should continue to support a union with a partner who's only in it for the money aka barnett formula.
Labour's success has cemented my view that in the UK at least, incumbency benefits during a crisis. Post that crisis Llafur's pandemic response will be called out, as will the Westminster Government's.
So Tories overperform in England, Labour in Wales and SNP in Scotland - how much will those vaccine boosts be worth by 2024?
Well a lot of people who might have died are still alive and likely to be v grateful.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled that the British government had no power to block a referendum, then it would take place. There would be no question of police or troops stopping people from voting.
If the Supreme Court ruled against such a referendum taking place, then local authorities would have every reason to boycott it, if Holyrood pressed ahead with it regardless.
Even if the SC ruled the referendum could go ahead they would also have to say it could have no impact on the Union if the UK government decided to ignore the result as the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster
We need more Scots (visibly) in the UK Government - Gove doesn't count.
I can't see why Boris can't pluck out Tory MSPs from the Scottish Parliament for some ministerial portfolios.
Ruth sat in cabinet without portfolio.
Why? MSPs weren't elected to Westminster.
You'd need to give them peerages.
I don't think there's anything constitutionally that stops Boris appointing anyone to a ministerial position, including me or you incidentally, except precedent.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
Patrick Gordon Walker was a minister (foreign secretary) without being an MP.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
Yes it is, but they chose as leader the person who was most adamant there should be a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain. It was always going to be a tough gig for Starmer to convince those whose vote he tried to obstruct, delay and void that he is on their side, and so it is.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
We need more Scots (visibly) in the UK Government - Gove doesn't count.
I can't see why Boris can't pluck out Tory MSPs from the Scottish Parliament for some ministerial portfolios.
Ruth sat in cabinet without portfolio.
Why? MSPs weren't elected to Westminster.
You'd need to give them peerages.
I don't think there's anything constitutionally that stops Boris appointing anyone to a ministerial position, including me or you incidentally, except precedent.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
It's the fact that they are MSPs who were elected specifically for matters devolved to Scotland. The problem I see is EVEL and the howls from fellow Tories who lose their chances. RD as effectively an observer is one thing, but giving them actual responsibilities? Beyoind the SoSfS, there's not a lot that doesn't impinge on rUK or on England alone and therefore violates EVEL at least in spirit.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
The Tories poll about 20% in Scotland which, based on the 2011 Census returns and the turmoil that has transpired in the intervening decade, probably represents the approximate percentage of the Scottish population that still identifies as British.
An Anglo-Welsh Britain might still be salvageable, but the Union with Scotland is over. Done. They've given up on us. It's just a matter of time now.
Rubbish, Unionist parties ie the Tories, Labour and LDs are currently winning about 52% combined in Scotland to just 48% combined for the SNP and Greens and Alba.
If the SNP and Greens and Alba were on about 60%+ combined you might have a point, they are not
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't give a flying fuck about the Union. They're just so many muddy middle voters who have yet to be persuaded that independence won't cost them money. This is demonstrated in, for example, Ayr, where a tiny slither of the (completely hopeless and pointless) Lib Dem vote acting tactically would've saved the Tory. They didn't bother. They let the SNP in, they knew that would strength Sturgeon's hand, they did it anyway.
So what if the Union is held together mainly by money, Scotland joined the Union in the first place in 1707 because it was bankrupted by the Darien scheme and needed funds from Westminster not out of any great love of England.
In 2014 it was hard headed fiscally sensible voters who are proud Scots but know the Union boosts the Scottish economy who got No to 55% (and mainly vote Labour and LD) not emotional British patriot Unionists who only amount to 25-30% of Scots and almost all vote Tory and mostly backed Brexit
That's a fair point. Scotland is basically an independent nation that decided to form a united partnership with England for fiscal and political reasons.
It worked. It allowed Scots to build the modern world and get much richer than they otherwise would have done, whilst retaining their laws and identity as Scots too - with British on top.
A small point, and no doubt it would make lots of good people cross, but just as there was no past period of a happy peaceful united single independent Ireland for nationalists to return to, there is vanishingly little evidence of a happy peaceful united single independent Scotland (of anything like its current boundaries) in the past.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
Good morning, everyone.
Hello Anne.
The Tories poll about 20% in Scotland which, based on the 2011 Census returns and the turmoil that has transpired in the intervening decade, probably represents the approximate percentage of the Scottish population that still identifies as British.
An Anglo-Welsh Britain might still be salvageable, but the Union with Scotland is over. Done. They've given up on us. It's just a matter of time now.
Rubbish, Unionist parties ie the Tories, Labour and LDs are currently winning about 52% combined in Scotland to just 48% combined for the SNP and Greens and Alba.
If the SNP and Greens and Alba were on about 60%+ combined you might have a point, they are not
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't give a flying fuck about the Union. They're just so many muddy middle voters who have yet to be persuaded that independence won't cost them money. This is demonstrated in, for example, Ayr, where a tiny slither of the (completely hopeless and pointless) Lib Dem vote acting tactically would've saved the Tory. They didn't bother. They let the SNP in, they knew that would strength Sturgeon's hand, they did it anyway.
So what if the Union is held together mainly by money, Scotland joined the Union in the first place in 1707 because it was bankrupted by the Darien scheme and needed funds from Westminster not out of any great love of England.
In 2014 it was hard headed fiscally sensible voters who are proud Scots but know the Union boosts the Scottish economy who got No to 55% (and mainly vote Labour and LD) not emotional British patriot Unionists who only amount to 25-30% of Scots and almost all vote Tory and mostly backed Brexit
That's a fair point. Scotland is basically an independent nation that decided to form a united partnership with England for fiscal and political reasons.
It worked. It allowed Scots to build the modern world and get much richer than they otherwise would have done, whilst retaining their laws and identity as Scots too - with British on top.
English nationalists might begin to question why they should continue to support a union with a partner who's only in it for the money aka barnett formula.
Same reasons we did originally: integrated trade, national security and foreign policy.
Labour's success has cemented my view that in the UK at least, incumbency benefits during a crisis. Post that crisis Llafur's pandemic response will be called out, as will the Westminster Government's.
So Tories overperform in England, Labour in Wales and SNP in Scotland - how much will those vaccine boosts be worth by 2024?
Well a lot of people who might have died are still alive and likely to be v grateful.
I think it depends a lot on the economy. If things tank and taxes, inflation and unemployment go up, that incumbency advantage can quickly become a disadvantage even if the reasons for the economy tanking are mostly global and pandemic driven.
If things are close to average or better economically then you are probably right.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled that the British government had no power to block a referendum, then it would take place. There would be no question of police or troops stopping people from voting.
If the Supreme Court ruled against such a referendum taking place, then local authorities would have every reason to boycott it, if Holyrood pressed ahead with it regardless.
Sigh.
Holyrood couldn’t ‘press ahead with it regardless.’ It would be a criminal offence to do so. And as the LA would become complicit in the crime under such a scenario, they would refuse to hold one.
Ultimately, the Scottish Parliament exists because of laws passed at Westminster and within the constitutional framework of the UK, whether the SNP like that or not. It can’t tear up those laws to suit their emotional needs without risking its own right to exist.
I don't think it would be a criminal offence. It would be ultra vires; if someone took the trouble to get an injunction against it on that basis then holding it would be a contempt of court, but nobody has to do that. They could just let it happen and boycott it, and then try to make individuals personally liable for the costs.
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
And would give the lie to the idea that London is lost to the blues in an ocean of woke liberalism yearning for the sunlit uphills of Angela von de Leydenland.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
1. Because the person most likely to win a contest is not the same as the best leader for them. 2. They might elect Burgon. 3. Stability 4-10. See 2
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
Plus would also be better than Zac Goldsmith's 57% to 43% loss in 2016 and also better than Norris' 58% to 42% loss in 2000 and match Norris' 55% to 45% loss of 2004
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
You need to have done the work, though, to forensically demolish the SNP wibble on debt, on currency, on borders, on EU membership, on the departure of the Scottish finance sector, on the departure of the nuclear submarines and the jobs that sustain them, on North Sea oil platform and pipeline abandonment costs.
I suspect that there are significant numbers of Scots whose heart is with independence, but whose head knows the SNP has no answers to this raft of issues - and who will not take the risk that "something will be sorted".
It is just so much easier for Boris to play at being de Gaulle and say "Non....".
Yes these points need to be forcibly made and it has been evident from many interviews in the last month that Sturgeon has no answers to them at all. But the missing element in 2014 was the positive case for the Union and we should not make that mistake again.
Alistair Darling didn't have the confidence.
Jim Murphy did but he got tired of the physical and verbal abuse. Understandably.
As an aside, just seen there's a revised edition of John F White's biography of Aurelian (released 2020, I have the earlier original). Very important and capable emperor, much overlooked and well worth reading about.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled that the British government had no power to block a referendum, then it would take place. There would be no question of police or troops stopping people from voting.
If the Supreme Court ruled against such a referendum taking place, then local authorities would have every reason to boycott it, if Holyrood pressed ahead with it regardless.
Sigh.
Holyrood couldn’t ‘press ahead with it regardless.’ It would be a criminal offence to do so. And as the LA would become complicit in the crime under such a scenario, they would refuse to hold one.
Ultimately, the Scottish Parliament exists because of laws passed at Westminster and within the constitutional framework of the UK, whether the SNP like that or not. It can’t tear up those laws to suit their emotional needs without risking its own right to exist.
I don't think it would be a criminal offence. It would be ultra vires; if someone took the trouble to get an injunction against it on that basis then holding it would be a contempt of court, but nobody has to do that. They could just let it happen and boycott it, and then try to make individuals personally liable for the costs.
Again, we come back to the precedent, this time over prorogation. Had Johnson ignored the judgement and refused to recall Parliament, that would have been an offence. So he would have been locked up. Which is why he didn’t do it.
I have a solution to the current Scottish dilemma. They should have a referendum on whether to hold a referendum! If that won, then ideas like David H’s might come into play. Unfortunately an ideal time to do this has just been missed...
Just noticed that Jess Philips is fav on BF for next lab leader at 4.1
I don’t think it takes much to shift that market, but you can definitely imagine her throwing her hat in the ring if they lose Batley & Spen. She’s a slightly more electable version of Angela Rayner I suppose. Gobbier but with added brains.
She’s certainly improved a great deal under Starmer. She is hated by the labour left with a passion and is too divisive as a whole. I can’t see it.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
You need to have done the work, though, to forensically demolish the SNP wibble on debt, on currency, on borders, on EU membership, on the departure of the Scottish finance sector, on the departure of the nuclear submarines and the jobs that sustain them, on North Sea oil platform and pipeline abandonment costs.
I suspect that there are significant numbers of Scots whose heart is with independence, but whose head knows the SNP has no answers to this raft of issues - and who will not take the risk that "something will be sorted".
It is just so much easier for Boris to play at being de Gaulle and say "Non....".
Yes these points need to be forcibly made and it has been evident from many interviews in the last month that Sturgeon has no answers to them at all. But the missing element in 2014 was the positive case for the Union and we should not make that mistake again.
Alistair Darling didn't have the confidence.
Jim Murphy did but he got tired of the physical and verbal abuse. Understandably.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
I'm not that bullish on him but he deserves a year of post pandemic politics to try and create impact and turn the corner. This time next year is the time to make the call on whether he does or does not lead into the GE.
We need more Scots (visibly) in the UK Government - Gove doesn't count.
I can't see why Boris can't pluck out Tory MSPs from the Scottish Parliament for some ministerial portfolios.
Ruth sat in cabinet without portfolio.
Why? MSPs weren't elected to Westminster.
You'd need to give them peerages.
I don't think there's anything constitutionally that stops Boris appointing anyone to a ministerial position, including me or you incidentally, except precedent.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
Patrick Gordon Walker was a minister (foreign secretary) without being an MP.
Let's face it, that didn't end well. Having said that, the spectre of Griffith's, should haunt every populist Conservative.
We need more Scots (visibly) in the UK Government - Gove doesn't count.
I can't see why Boris can't pluck out Tory MSPs from the Scottish Parliament for some ministerial portfolios.
Ruth sat in cabinet without portfolio.
Why? MSPs weren't elected to Westminster.
You'd need to give them peerages.
I don't think there's anything constitutionally that stops Boris appointing anyone to a ministerial position, including me or you incidentally, except precedent.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
Patrick Gordon Walker was a minister (foreign secretary) without being an MP.
Let's face it, that didn't end well. Having said that, the spectre of Griffith's, should haunt every populist Conservative.
Apologies for the rogue apostrophe. It was my Chinese phone, honest.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
1. Because the person most likely to win a contest is not the same as the best leader for them. 2. They might elect Burgon. 3. Stability 4-10. See 2
I don't think they have a chance of recovering the Red Wall whilst Starmer is leader. I suppose if people think he can convince those Leave voters that he is on their side, more so than Boris, they might as well let him stay, but I am comfortable with my view that has little to no chance of happening
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
And would give the lie to the idea that London is lost to the blues in an ocean of woke liberalism yearning for the sunlit uphills of Angela von de Leydenland.
Some educated guesses looking at the London mayoral results so far:
1. Bailey is picking up Asian-Indian voters, which might explain his first place leads in places like Brent / Harrow and Ealing / Hillingdon. I don't think he is picking up Black voters, given the results coming out of areas such as North East and Lambeth / Southwark;
2. It doesn't look like there is much of a Remain revolt against Boris given the results in places like West Central (and generally), although there is a minor impact;
3. We will see when we get to City and East but one thing that might be very interesting to see is the effect of Covid restrictions on the ability of Labour to use community leaders to galvanise the Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. My guess is that it has had a disruptive effect but it is unclear how much. Not sure if a major disruption would make the contest closer than 55/45 but might be worth keeping an eye on.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
I find myself suddenly quite bored of Scottish Indy talk. Christ knows how it must feel north of the border.
The biggest challenges of our time: climate change; intergenerational inequality; the “fourth” industrial revolution...are best addressed as a Union.
Edit: Scotland has the worst drugs problem in Europe. What has the SNP done about that?
Safe, legally permitted drug cosumption rooms are one idea that they've been pushing for quite a while. Unfortunately the government in charge of UK drug legislation are agin, so..
Labour's success has cemented my view that in the UK at least, incumbency benefits during a crisis. Post that crisis Llafur's pandemic response will be called out, as will the Westminster Government's.
The UKIP collapse in the North Wales looks to have broken towards the Tories but not as overwhelming as in the North of England. So Con were able to flip Vale of Clwyd from -3 to +1 but nothing else. I was surprised Labour held Wrexham. By the end of the campaign, I expected them to hold Delyn and Clwyd South but not so easily.
In the South the swing has been towards Labour with Jane Hutt surviving yet again and CWPS and PP being close. Bridgend went in the other direction but their 2011-2016 Assembly majorities were inflated by Carwyn Jones in comparison to the Westminster elections. So it reversed back to being in the same league of Delyn, Clwyd South, Newport West.
Drakeford is boring. But I think you can benefit from a boring reassuring type of leader when you are in government and you get exposure by virtue of your institutional position. In opposition, you risk not to be noticed with this sort of leader.
For someone broadly of the centre left, the Welsh result has reassured me that Labour's failure nationally has more to do with a vaccine bounce than Starmer's lack of charisma. That is not to say an injection of enthusiasm wouldn't help.
Yesterday however, two posters deduced from the Welsh results that there was a desire for a Corbynista ticket, and that is what won it for Labour in Wales. They extrapolated from their erroneous theory that what Labour need nationally is a Marxist ticket of say Burgon and Long Bailey, and with it the keys to 10 Downing Street.
They are both wrong.
It’s just a misunderstanding of party politics.
It’s not Labour who see Burgon and Wrong Daily as a dream ticket. It’s the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
I am going to contradict myself (re Starmer) however I do want to give credit for Labour's Impressive result to both Andrew RT and Paul Davies.
Starmer may be mediocre,, Ross in Scotland may be mediocre, but RT is ******* abject.
The Welsh Tories are currently on 26% on the constituency and list voteshare under RT, their highest ever Senedd voteshare and have also made 2 gains in the Senedd constituencies, Vale of Clwyd and Brecon and Radnor and no losses.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled that the British government had no power to block a referendum, then it would take place. There would be no question of police or troops stopping people from voting.
If the Supreme Court ruled against such a referendum taking place, then local authorities would have every reason to boycott it, if Holyrood pressed ahead with it regardless.
Sigh.
Holyrood couldn’t ‘press ahead with it regardless.’ It would be a criminal offence to do so. And as the LA would become complicit in the crime under such a scenario, they would refuse to hold one.
Ultimately, the Scottish Parliament exists because of laws passed at Westminster and within the constitutional framework of the UK, whether the SNP like that or not. It can’t tear up those laws to suit their emotional needs without risking its own right to exist.
I don't think it would be a criminal offence. It would be ultra vires; if someone took the trouble to get an injunction against it on that basis then holding it would be a contempt of court, but nobody has to do that. They could just let it happen and boycott it, and then try to make individuals personally liable for the costs.
Again, we come back to the precedent, this time over prorogation. Had Johnson ignored the judgement and refused to recall Parliament, that would have been an offence. So he would have been locked up. Which is why he didn’t do it.
Is that right? I don't think Johnson had to do anything positive to "recall Parliament"; it automatically remained in session as a result of the quashing of the O in C.
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
And would give the lie to the idea that London is lost to the blues in an ocean of woke liberalism yearning for the sunlit uphills of Angela von de Leydenland.
These jaundiced generalizations about large groups of people do tend to be nonsense, don't they?
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
If we are going to start rhyming slogans, it's time to get rid of Dreary Keir-y
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
1. Because the person most likely to win a contest is not the same as the best leader for them. 2. They might elect Burgon. 3. Stability 4-10. See 2
I don't think they have a chance of recovering the Red Wall whilst Starmer is leader. I suppose if people think he can convince those Leave voters that he is on their side, more so than Boris, they might as well let him stay, but I am comfortable with my view that has little to no chance of happening
Welcome back, @isam. Though I'm not sure why you're persisting in making this point about Sir Keir - it's not as if the election results have proven you completely and totally right or anything...
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
Covid will be blotting out normal politics this time next year.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
I agree with both you and kinabalu here. An anachronistic copy of New Labour and its ideology is clearly not the answer, but the British left urgently needs a new narrative of optimism. Starmer hasn't provided anything like that yet, whereas Biden has.
I find myself suddenly quite bored of Scottish Indy talk. Christ knows how it must feel north of the border.
The biggest challenges of our time: climate change; intergenerational inequality; the “fourth” industrial revolution...are best addressed as a Union.
Edit: Scotland has the worst drugs problem in Europe. What has the SNP done about that?
Safe, legally permitted drug cosumption rooms are one idea that they've been pushing for quite a while. Unfortunately the government in charge of UK drug legislation are agin, so..
Have the UK Government taken to the Supreme Court and vetoed any drug laws the Scottish Government passed? Or is that just an excuse.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain - and the Tories own it. Until this changes it will be a bugger to remove them from power under FPTP.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
It is indeed trivial to identify Labours problems, although it would be hard to single it down to a problem. My rough order would be:
Demographics against them FPTP against them Divided Lack of clear message Corbyn legacy Leadership lacking quality in both leader and cabinet City vs town Devolution settlements Boundaries against them
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
What happens after a year should things not improve and he doesn't resign? The LP is not good as dispensing with its leaders.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
Yes. This article yesterday in the i, from a Labour activist rang true to me
“We’re seen as patronising supply teachers. There’s some truth to the “going for a pint” test, and right now, we’re so worthy, gloomy and dull, even most Labour activists wouldn’t go for a drink with us. We also prefer to have a go at the public rather than work to win them round. I heard that one Labour canvasser told off a voter on the doorstep who wasn’t supporting the party, suggesting they “check their values”. Political charm school!”
Who goes down better in a working class boozer, a posho who has nothing in common w the locals but gets a round in and downs a pint, or a bloke who went to their school, then on to uni & comes back telling them how unenlightened they all are? Middle class academic Labour are the latter, but because they don’t get that working class people don’t hate posh people like they do, they fail to see they’re wasting their time
I make the range of potential SNP seats now (constituency) from to 60 to 62 seats. The lower number hinges on the SCons having an outside chance of taking Perthshire South & Edinburgh Pentlands, whilst also holding Aberdeenshire West.
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
And to be clear, the Conservatives face the same problem if Johnson falls under a bus tomorrow. The choice will be Sunak (personable, but about twelve years old, very dry, fingerprints on some of the worst Covid decisions) or Gove (stop sniggering at the back). None of the rest of them come close.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
I hope you’re right.
But I think he’s a dud, unfortunately. Not sure labour have anyone better, tho.
A lot depends on what the tories do. Are they going to revert to fiscal conservatism? That would help Kier out of his mess.
I suspect they’re gonna kick paying the bills past the next election - In which case, I don’t think labour gets a look in.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
1. Because the person most likely to win a contest is not the same as the best leader for them. 2. They might elect Burgon. 3. Stability 4-10. See 2
I don't think they have a chance of recovering the Red Wall whilst Starmer is leader. I suppose if people think he can convince those Leave voters that he is on their side, more so than Boris, they might as well let him stay, but I am comfortable with my view that has little to no chance of happening
Welcome back, @isam. Though I'm not sure why you're persisting in making this point about Sir Keir - it's not as if the election results have proven you completely and totally right or anything...
Thank you.
Well, yes, although I did have £200 at 5/1 on Lab in Hartlepool... even I didn’t think he was that bad!
The thing is, the battle doesn't need to be fought. The once in a generation battle was fought in 2014. The SNP have not won a majority to alter that view.
End of.
The union remains.
This is the most incomprehensible of arguments.
The voters are allowed to change their minds, and what one set of representatives said to another is of no consequences.
It’s a particularly stupid argument for Unionists to make, as it echoes those made against allowing a votes on EU treaties, and later on Brexit, in terms of prioritising the words of politicians over the will of the electorate.
Which was one reason those who wanted to remain in the EU lost that vote.
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
And would give the lie to the idea that London is lost to the blues in an ocean of woke liberalism yearning for the sunlit uphills of Angela von de Leydenland.
These jaundiced generalizations about large groups of people do tend to be nonsense, don't they?
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
And to be clear, the Conservatives face the same problem if Johnson falls under a bus tomorrow. The choice will be Sunak (personable, but about twelve years old, very dry, fingerprints on some of the worst Covid decisions) or Gove (stop sniggering at the back). None of the rest of them come close.
Both Sunak and Truss could make a very good PM. Gove is too Machiavellian to be the leader.
That they're not obviously better than the current one isn't a problem, its rather stabilising.
I make the range of potential SNP seats now (constituency) from to 60 to 62 seats. The lower number hinges on the SCons having an outside chance of taking Perthshire South & Edinburgh Pentlands, whilst also holding Aberdeenshire West.
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
No way they can get 3 seats in the south. Even 2 seats stretches the bounds of credibility.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
It is indeed trivial to identify Labours problems, although it would be hard to single it down to a problem. My rough order would be:
Demographics against them FPTP against them Divided Lack of clear message Corbyn legacy Leadership lacking quality in both leader and cabinet City vs town Devolution settlements Boundaries against them
First past the post isn’t against them, it’s just not as in favour of them as it was in 2010. And that’s because of...
Scotland. And that is arguably the biggest problem for Labour, something that they can’t do much about.
Thanks for interesting Header. The premise - negotiate the indy deal first and then have the vote - sounds sensible on the face of it but in practice is a non starter. Years of intense, complex, fractious talks would be required to thrash out a deal, and to get there you need the authentic political pressures of having to do it because separation has been democratically mandated. The notion of going through all of this in advance as a kind of roleplay, and with the balance of power artificially stacked in favour of the UK government, which it would be, is somewhat ludicrous. It's a Not Happening Event.
Not if there are two referendums, one to trigger the above procedure and, if approved, the second to ratify the outcome.
Yep, you could have a ratifying 2nd referendum. That is more feasible. But it would be prone to all the flaws (imo fatal) that would have bedeviled the Brexit version if May had put her deal to the vote. Remain can't really be on there because it's been rejected. If it is, Leavers who don't like the deal would be disenfranchized and many would boycott. Trinary referendums are too messy so the other option has to be Leave No Deal. Which opens up a different can of worms. Ah the memories.
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
Plus would also be better than Zac Goldsmith's 57% to 43% loss in 2016 and also better than Norris' 58% to 42% loss in 2000 and match Norris' 55% to 45% loss of 2004
What has Khan done for London since he took office.. apart from just being Labour I cannot recall anything of note that has been widely publicised.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain - and the Tories own it. Until this changes it will be a bugger to remove them from power under FPTP.
That is true.
But what Wales confirmed is Conservative success in England had a direct correlation to Johnson's perceived pandemic/vaccine performance.
Had Labour died on the vine in Wales, it would be all over for the party and Johnson runs on as long as he wishes. They didn't and he won't. Not that there isn't work to do, and lots of it
Politico makes this point on Macron's vaccine posturing:
France only started producing vaccine shots in March, after it benefited from a transfer of technologies to produce mRNA vaccines. No French pharmaceutical company or laboratory has so far succeeded in developing an in-house COVID-19 vaccine.
In London, it looks as if Shaun Bailey will lose by about 44/45 to 56/55, which is a more creditable performance than seemed likely.
Plus would also be better than Zac Goldsmith's 57% to 43% loss in 2016 and also better than Norris' 58% to 42% loss in 2000 and match Norris' 55% to 45% loss of 2004
What has Khan done for London since he took office.. apart from just being Labour I cannot recall anything of note that has been widely publicised.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
I agree with both you and kinabalu here. An anachronistic copy of New Labour and its ideology is clearly not the answer, but the British left urgently needs a new narrative of optimism. Starmer hasn't provided anything like that yet, whereas Biden has.
Being not Trump and after the attack on Capitol Hill its hardly surprising that Biden is viewed favourably.
If I were Left of centre, I would now advocate proportional representation to stitch together an anti-Tory coalition. I see no prospect of a single party of the Left attaining critical mass.
But to put that in place, you need to get a majority under FPTP and if you do that, you start thinking, hang-on if I can win under FPTP why change it to something which means I would have to share power?
You could have an electoral pact, where all parties who agree with PR, stand one joint candidate against presumably the Tory candidate. But I recon the voters would refuse to play ball.
Worth remembering in 2007 many were wondering if the Conservatives could survive given Labour had been in power for a decade yet Brown had a 10 point lead.
There is lesson from this but not the one you allude to. New Labour would in all likelihood have won a 4th term if they had ousted Brown as Chancellor rather than Blair as PM in 2007. If the Tories oust Johnson this side of an election they’re playing with electoral fire.
I make the range of potential SNP seats now (constituency) from to 60 to 62 seats. The lower number hinges on the SCons having an outside chance of taking Perthshire South & Edinburgh Pentlands, whilst also holding Aberdeenshire West.
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
No way they can get 3 seats in the south. Even 2 seats stretches the bounds of credibility.
They will get 1 in the south.
Can you talk me through this, if you don't mind?
SNP got 3 x seats in SoS last time and voting percentages there don't seem wildly different this time?
Comments
Holyrood couldn’t ‘press ahead with it regardless.’ It would be a criminal offence to do so. And as the LA would become complicit in the crime under such a scenario, they would refuse to hold one.
Ultimately, the Scottish Parliament exists because of laws passed at Westminster and within the constitutional framework of the UK, whether the SNP like that or not. It can’t tear up those laws to suit their emotional needs without risking its own right to exist.
Oh, you mean leave the festering, constitutional dungheap for some other poor sod to sort out?
Starmer may be mediocre,, Ross in Scotland may be mediocre, but RT is ******* abject.
It worked. It allowed Scots to build the modern world and get much richer than they otherwise would have done, whilst retaining their laws and identity as Scots too - with British on top.
Charles Moore
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/07/first-time-suspect-reports-labours-death-not-exaggerated/
Why are you obsessing about this?
The other lesson from results so far is that, if you offer voters tangible delivery, it works in your favour. That needn't be vaccines; look at Houchen's win. Johnson, on the other hand, is pretty hopeless at that, and he can't get Kate Bingham to do everything.
So- how do you ensure that crims are actually caught, tried and locked up? Rather than having the government shahting a lot? How do you make the education system work better- or at all? The government is leaving lots of open goals, and there are all sorts of unexploded bombs ticking away. Boring, incremental stuff, and it won't inspire the activists. (Which is one of Dom C's points- though Boris is what you get if you turn Conservative activist's dreams into human form.) But it might just work. Oh, and we might smooth out some of the rough edges to make it easier to work, travel and trade. Nothing to worry about.
"Vote Labour: we all have work to do." Work in progress, but they can have that one.
He is a big subscriber to ‘never put off till tomorrow what you can get out of dealing with altogether.’
And 1979 did settle things for 18 years and 3 PMs. He’d take that.
Ruth Davidson had neither a Westminster seat nor a peerage.
If things are close to average or better economically then you are probably right.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
2. They might elect Burgon.
3. Stability
4-10. See 2
The biggest challenges of our time: climate change; intergenerational inequality; the “fourth” industrial revolution...are best addressed as a Union.
Edit: Scotland has the worst drugs problem in Europe. What has the SNP done about that?
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1390967927017463811
Have a good morning.
Waste of time.
Climate change is being tackled anyway, globally. I don’t see that as an issue.
I don’t care either way if they go independent as long as the financial aspect of the deal is fair to all sides
1. Bailey is picking up Asian-Indian voters, which might explain his first place leads in places like Brent / Harrow and Ealing / Hillingdon. I don't think he is picking up Black voters, given the results coming out of areas such as North East and Lambeth / Southwark;
2. It doesn't look like there is much of a Remain revolt against Boris given the results in places like West Central (and generally), although there is a minor impact;
3. We will see when we get to City and East but one thing that might be very interesting to see is the effect of Covid restrictions on the ability of Labour to use community leaders to galvanise the Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. My guess is that it has had a disruptive effect but it is unclear how much. Not sure if a major disruption would make the contest closer than 55/45 but might be worth keeping an eye on.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
https://twitter.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1390557137571663872?s=20
Surely cabinet appointees should be the best person for the role without regard to nationality or any other construct of identity.
Demographics against them
FPTP against them
Divided
Lack of clear message
Corbyn legacy
Leadership lacking quality in both leader and cabinet
City vs town
Devolution settlements
Boundaries against them
“We’re seen as patronising supply teachers. There’s some truth to the “going for a pint” test, and right now, we’re so worthy, gloomy and dull, even most Labour activists wouldn’t go for a drink with us. We also prefer to have a go at the public rather than work to win them round. I heard that one Labour canvasser told off a voter on the doorstep who wasn’t supporting the party, suggesting they “check their values”. Political charm school!”
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-politics-return-to-grit-wit-and-steel-991247
Who goes down better in a working class boozer, a posho who has nothing in common w the locals but gets a round in and downs a pint, or a bloke who went to their school, then on to uni & comes back telling them how unenlightened they all are? Middle class academic Labour are the latter, but because they don’t get that working class people don’t hate posh people like they do, they fail to see they’re wasting their time
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
But I think he’s a dud, unfortunately. Not sure labour have anyone better, tho.
A lot depends on what the tories do. Are they going to revert to fiscal conservatism? That would help Kier out of his mess.
I suspect they’re gonna kick paying the bills past the next election - In which case, I don’t think labour gets a look in.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Well, yes, although I did have £200 at 5/1 on Lab in Hartlepool... even I didn’t think he was that bad!
Which was one reason those who wanted to remain in the EU lost that vote.
That they're not obviously better than the current one isn't a problem, its rather stabilising.
Even 2 seats stretches the bounds of credibility.
They will get 1 in the south.
Scotland. And that is arguably the biggest problem for Labour, something that they can’t do much about.
The Union is a union between two nations, “both alike in dignity”.
In that context *all* cross union institutions need a moiety of Scots.
But what Wales confirmed is Conservative success in England had a direct correlation to Johnson's perceived pandemic/vaccine performance.
Had Labour died on the vine in Wales, it would be all over for the party and Johnson runs on as long as he wishes. They didn't and he won't. Not that there isn't work to do, and lots of it
France only started producing vaccine shots in March, after it benefited from a transfer of technologies to produce mRNA vaccines. No French pharmaceutical company or laboratory has so far succeeded in developing an in-house COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-calls-on-us-uk-to-stop-blocking-vaccines/
Anyone know when more returns may be expected today? (Got up to check, it's 3.30am my location!)
You could have an electoral pact, where all parties who agree with PR, stand one joint candidate against presumably the Tory candidate. But I recon the voters would refuse to play ball.
SNP got 3 x seats in SoS last time and voting percentages there don't seem wildly different this time?
What am I missing?