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
Activist base which seems to hate their own (previous) voters Unable to understand voter concerns Unable to understand the concept of aspiration Unable to understand the desire for home ownership Lack of MPs/MSPs/those aspiring to be candidates with any professional/occupational experience beyond politics In Scotland, literally nothing to say other than 'We're not the Tories, vote for the Union' Inability to understand that 'the North' is as socially and economically complex as anywhere else, and is not just all flat caps, whippets and racists
My message to Labour - stop reading The Guardian and watching Ken Loach films.
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?
What am I missing?
Gained two constituency seats (East Lothian and Ayr South).
Politico.com - Stefanik privately pledges to serve only through 2022 in House GOP leadership Rep. Elise Stefanik is privately telling GOP colleagues that she'll only serve one term in leadership before seeking the top job on the House Education and Labor Committee.
. . . Stefaik’s pledge to limit her time in GOP leadership is just one of several assurances she is making to other House Republicans as she works quickly to lock down support for her leadership bid. While she is widely expected to clinch the post after embattled Conference Chair Liz Cheney likely gets the boot next week, some lawmakers on the far-right have grumbled about her voting scorecard. Other members of the conference have complained they feel boxed in by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is whipping members hard to support Stefanik.
While other GOP members expressed interest in the position, so far none have formally stepped into the race to challenge Stefanik.
Stefanik, a moderate turned Trump ally, is also vowing to toe the party line and not buck leadership whenever they are whipping for or against something — a promise intended to assuage colleagues that she will not rock the boat like Cheney. The current No. 3 not only voted to impeach Donald Trump but also bucked the party a handful of other times on certain votes. . . .
Mr. Isam, that 'checking values' line reminds me of guidance (ahem) given during the Corbyn era of essentially trying to browbeat or emotionally blackmail votes into agreement.
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?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
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.
So you think he'll go for it then? I hope he does (and I'm wrong and he loses obvs) but I'm not so sure he will. He's reckless but this doesn't mean he isn't a coward too. He's got a lot to lose now.
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.
Oh, I think the SG should be a lot more ballsy and should just go ahead with it and let HMG go hang. However hypocrites who bleat about Scotland’s drug deaths while absolving Westminster of all responsibility and who also have conniptions about the thought of Holyrood taking ‘illegal’ unilateral actions in other areas can go fuck a porcupine.
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.
It is because of Brexit, as has been mentioned downthread whilst remain and leave have been roughly evenly split for the last decade two thirds of parliamentary constituencies are leave. Hence the Tories 360 from pro business remain to f business leave in 5 years.
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.
Oh, I think the SG should be a lot more ballsy and should just go ahead with it and let HMG go hang. However hypocrites who bleat about Scotland’s drug deaths while absolving Westminster of all responsibility and who also have conniptions about the thought of Holyrood taking ‘illegal’ unilateral actions in other areas can go fuck a porcupine.
Any idea on how the List vote percentages are in Scotland yet? Alba seem to be a dead duck, but any sign of the "Both Votes SNP" campaign working to increase their share? Or have enough of their votes splintered to Greens and Alba to hurt them?
The way the List works seems weird at times. Take Mid Scotland and Fife for instance - in 2011 they held or gained all but one of the constituencies, but still ended up with one List MSP; in 2016 they again had all but one of the constituencies, but this time they lost their only MSP.
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.
It is because of Brexit, as has been mentioned downthread whilst remain and leave have been roughly evenly split for the last decade two thirds of parliamentary constituencies are leave. Hence the Tories 360 from pro business remain to f business leave in 5 years.
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?
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.
Yeah, but Biden is also working to implement a positive agenda, the biggest example the infrastructure program - something his predecessor demagogued about, but did zero to accomplish.
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?
Sadly for Labour proving only too true......
Well no. Until last night I might have agreed, but Wales confirmed why Johnson has done so well in England. Although the Conservatives can take heart in that the turnout was piss-poor and perhaps due to a lack of enthusiasm for RT, Conservative voters stayed at home they got skewered on Drakeford's vaccine performance. That being the case the same may be true for Labour in England
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.
I don't agree with this.
The first referendum would be indicative, i.e. for Scots to express a wish that terms be investigated and negotiated in advance of a final decision being made, so that they know of the practicalities and outcomes involved upfront.
Then a 2nd referendum would determine the final outcome with the electorate having been furnished with the information necessary to make an enlightened choice.
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?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
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.
Oh, I think the SG should be a lot more ballsy and should just go ahead with it and let HMG go hang. However hypocrites who bleat about Scotland’s drug deaths while absolving Westminster of all responsibility and who also have conniptions about the thought of Holyrood taking ‘illegal’ unilateral actions in other areas can go fuck a porcupine.
Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
OJ finally grows up.....
Yep, he's not an immature commentator. The "motormouth" style (on telly) and the youthful look can deceive.
The Growth Commission was utterly confused on currency, prescribed austerity to deal with the deficit (but pretended it wasn’t austerity), and said: “Securing frictionless borders with rUK and EU should be a top strategic priority of the Scottish Government”, which is a fantasy.
Helen Lewis @helenlewis · 1h The existence of Twitter is terrible for Labour. It means MPs litigate factional beefs right in front of journalists. And the most pious, unbearable activists get the most engagement, both from fans and people being angry about them in turn.
Idea for Labour: stay off Twitter
iirc Biden's number one campaign rule back last autumn was everyone on the campaign off Twitter.
Re the header, there is a certain irony in Brexit's front man opposing Scottish independence.
The header may offer sound advice but taken as a whole, it is reminiscent of Bitter Together or Project Fear, concentrating on the drawbacks of independence rather than the advantages of union.
The one is the flip side of the other.
The drawback of independence - restrictions to trade and travel, for example - is the benefit of Union. Without putting the two side-by-side, the electorate doesn't get a fair picture.
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.
To have a leader hated by the left is essential to Labour being taken seriously by a good number of the 2-3 million extra voters it needs. They have seen through the Kinnock/Starmer process of rising up the left ranks and then miraculously discovering centrist social democracy. Jess Phillips would be a similar risk for Labour as Boris was for the Tories. But she has star quality. One of the reasons of course she is hated by mediocrity.
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
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?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
Do our resident Nats welcome the support from English based Remainer types who are clinging to Indyref2 as the last stick left to punishment beat Boris with for having the temerity to get Brexit done ?
You do realise that when some other cause comes along like the Grenfell report or NHS under pressure when it has to catch up post Covid that they will lose interest fast ?
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
Plus keep an eye open for Andy Wightman in the Highlands and Islands - an Independent pro-indy candidate.
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.
Don't agree with this at all. Rishi would also be a first-class electoral asset: he exemplifies 'safe pair of hands' better than Starmer does while also being a more articulate and engaging speaker, which would help win back some of the normality-fetishists who dislike Boris; he's also a Leaver who's happy to spend big in Leave areas and pursue their agenda, thus keeping the new heartlands on side; he's made an excellent start at brand-building already; and he's 18 (!) years younger than Starmer. By that point, of course, no one will give a toss about what Covid decisions his 'fingerprints' are on. As a final bonus for those who prioritize such things, producing the first Asian Prime Minister would demonstrate that whereas Labour merely mouth platitudes about 'empowering' minorities, the Conservative Party empowers them by, er, putting them into power.
It would be delicious indeed if the next big change in British politics were to be supplied once again from inside the dynamic Government instead of the moribund Opposition.
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.
It is because of Brexit, as has been mentioned downthread whilst remain and leave have been roughly evenly split for the last decade two thirds of parliamentary constituencies are leave. Hence the Tories 360 from pro business remain to f business leave in 5 years.
It’s not FPTP that’s a problem for Labour, it’s Brexit.
I’d suggest FPTP is helping to keep Labour alive at the moment.
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
Plus keep an eye open for Andy Wightman in the Highlands and Islands - an Independent pro-indy candidate.
Helen Lewis @helenlewis · 1h The existence of Twitter is terrible for Labour. It means MPs litigate factional beefs right in front of journalists. And the most pious, unbearable activists get the most engagement, both from fans and people being angry about them in turn.
Idea for Labour: stay off Twitter
iirc Biden's number one campaign rule back last autumn was everyone on the campaign off Twitter.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnsocial · 3m The trick is to distinguish between a correct narrative ("Lab can't win because its electoral coalition has collapsed") from an incorrect one ("Boris is on the ropes because wallpaper")!
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
They had a majority from 2016-2021 with Nat+Nat(Green) - referendum never happened.
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?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
*I should add, clear enough for Sturgeon to argue she has a mandate for IndyRef2.
It's much harder if she's in the minority of votes for both list and constituency seats next to the Unionists.
Owen is right about Starmer. Its just that "so go back to Corbynism" isn't the answer.
Iain Duncan Starmer says he will turn up the volume and act. Do so! Purge the lunatics and the unions or accept the show is over.
He won't. It's over.
I look forward to the Labour "Here to Hear" roadshow.
This can't work, because it will just result in an acrimonious split, which would then harm a PR coalition. Labour's only realistic options are a consensual centre-left program, or a semi-detached coalition agreement implementing PR, I would say.
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?
Sadly for Labour proving only too true......
Well no. Until last night I might have agreed, but Wales confirmed why Johnson has done so well in England. Although the Conservatives can take heart in that the turnout was piss-poor and perhaps due to a lack of enthusiasm for RT, Conservative voters stayed at home they got skewered on Drakeford's vaccine performance. That being the case the same may be true for Labour in England
And of course, events dear boy....
Tha't a nice cosy blanket you found for yourself there.......
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?
What am I missing?
They have two more constituency seats in the south this time (Ayr and East Lothian) so their divisor starts two higher.
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
They had a majority from 2016-2021 with Nat+Nat(Green) - referendum never happened.
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
The big difference surely, even if numbers are identical, is that this time both parties had in their manifesto that they would unambiguously hold a referendum.
Last time even the SNPs was so caveated and convoluted it wasn't really a demand for a referendum. This time it is.
Re the header, there is a certain irony in Brexit's front man opposing Scottish independence.
The header may offer sound advice but taken as a whole, it is reminiscent of Bitter Together or Project Fear, concentrating on the drawbacks of independence rather than the advantages of union.
The one is the flip side of the other.
The drawback of independence - restrictions to trade and travel, for example - is the benefit of Union. Without putting the two side-by-side, the electorate doesn't get a fair picture.
Breaking up a stable union of nations in existence for over 300 years and having a common land border bears no relation to breaking off a 45 year membership of a trade association in ludicrous denial about its statelike ambitions. Though it is worth noticing how hard the latter is, despite its relative triviality; the former will be 100 times tougher.
So, SNP on 63-64 seats. I presume the Greens will get between 7-10 seats (guessing based on 10% average). Alba is the joker in the pack, but I'm assuming they fall short everywhere for now.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
They had a majority from 2016-2021 with Nat+Nat(Green) - referendum never happened.
2016 had no manifesto promising a referendum. 2021 does.
Aberdeenshire East result just in, SNP majority of 1,889 but down on the 5,837 SNP majority in 2016, suggests the Tories will hold Aberdeenshire West
My seat. A Big increase in turnout, tactical switch from LD to Tory, didn't get them anywhere. Question will be how people voted on the list where tactical voting is both baked in and different to tactics on the constituency. We knew we were onto a hiding in the constituency, but are pushing to pick a seat up off the Tories on the list.
You being a pleb will of course try and insist that a constituency trend is the same as the list trend.
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
I don't think that there is much Labour can do just at the moment. English voters in seats like Hartlepool have bought into the idea that Brexit and a Boris Tory Party are going to improve their lot. As the next GE approaches they will have a better idea whether that is true or not. I suspect that there is very little depth to the current Tory support in the red wall but time will tell.
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is he in the penalty box, like in hockey? It happens. Not to me (yet) but there for the grace of God etc. etc. So for what it's worth, yours truly supports Rochdale's humble appeal & request re: TheJezziah.
We all SAY we want justice, but most of the time what we REALLY are asking for is mercy!
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 do think this view of Labour people's emotions is overstated, tbh, verging on gaslighting in fact, but - yes - a sense of confidence and optimism about the country and its future is essential. To the extent this really is a problem right now it must be fixed. Of all the fixes needed, it will be one of the easiest.
Question - is crafty cockney a HYUFD sock puppet as with Sean / eadric / Leon? They make the same tone-deaf "argument" in the same stupid way.
When - not if - a majority of pro-independence MSPs are declared later today, the expressed will of the people will be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt the Tories will try and ignore it, and thus will absolutely seal the reality of Scottish independence further down the line.
Johnson's Blue Labour party are English Nationalists. The sooner they openly accept this the better.
The only way the SNP get a majority is taking Aberdeenshire West and given the big vote Mike let's get ready to Rumbles had in 2016 and what happened to the LD vote in Aberdeenshire East I rate that as a less than 1% chance.
This is not quite betting on Biden after the election but it is betti g on Biden in Pennsylvania after the election level to back No Majority.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
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.
It is because of Brexit, as has been mentioned downthread whilst remain and leave have been roughly evenly split for the last decade two thirds of parliamentary constituencies are leave. Hence the Tories 360 from pro business remain to f business leave in 5 years.
It’s not FPTP that’s a problem for Labour, it’s Brexit.
I’d suggest FPTP is helping to keep Labour alive at the moment.
Its worth noting that the Labour Party in the UK is doing much better than many of its traditional 'socialist' sister parties across Europe.
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.
Do our resident Nats welcome the support from English based Remainer types who are clinging to Indyref2 as the last stick left to punishment beat Boris with for having the temerity to get Brexit done ?
You do realise that when some other cause comes along like the Grenfell report or NHS under pressure when it has to catch up post Covid that they will lose interest fast ?
So Harry, which EPL club do you think is going to snap up Gerrard?
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 also have a network of eight offices worldwide who work to promote Scottish interests overseas and strenthen (sic) our relationships with countries and continents. These offices are located in:"
Beijing Berlin Brussels Dublin London Ottawa Paris Washington DC
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.
Agreeing a referendum when the SNP are relatively weak and have an underwhelming mandate is a much better idea from a unionist viewpoint than agreeing one when they're in a hegimonic ascendency.
If the Union side (Remain/No, say), won a more convincing victory than in 2014, that would likely put the issue to bed for a generation. There does seem to be an acceptance that Brexit has changed things but that actually offers those opposed to a neverendum a good argument: there is unlikely to be any similar level of constitutional change that would merit such a quick revisiting of the question. And as Brexit proved, support for the idea, even with many firmly in each camp, still drifted by as much as 10%.
In respect of Wilson, his EEC referendum pretty much ended debate on the issue for 30+ years. Yes, Labour was committed to withdrawal in 1983 (though not 1979), but Labour was also unelectable at the time and going against the referendum was just another sign of that. True, that was based on a 2:1 outcome which is highly unlikely in Scotland but I wouldn't be surprised if, on a level field and with the genuine consequences of independence in front of them, the unionists couldn't outperform the 55% from last time.
As for Johnson, his argument would be 1. you learn lessons from experiences and use them to do it better next time, and 2. ultimately, the UK did have to have a vote on the deal, via the 2019 general election.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Meanwhile, in the constituency I work in - the Tories have built a new multi million pound sports facility, work has started on a new hospital and plans are in for school rebuilds. No wonder the Tories took Northumberland County Council.
The only way the SNP get a majority is taking Aberdeenshire West and given the big vote Mike let's get ready to Rumbles had in 2016 and what happened to the LD vote in Aberdeenshire East I rate that as a less than 1% chance.
This is not quite betting on Biden after the election but it is betti g on Biden in Pennsylvania after the election level to back No Majority.
"We also have a network of eight offices worldwide who work to promote Scottish interests overseas and strenthen (sic) our relationships with countries and continents. These offices are located in:"
Beijing Berlin Brussels Dublin London Ottawa Paris Washington DC
London. "Overseas".
Between that and other things like the EU flag being flown on Scottish buildings etc I'm beginning to wonder whether Sturgeon even needs to hold a referendum. She's clearly already determined that Scotland is independent already, is back in the EU already. Why bother doing the hard work?
"We also have a network of eight offices worldwide who work to promote Scottish interests overseas and strenthen (sic) our relationships with countries and continents. These offices are located in:"
Beijing Berlin Brussels Dublin London Ottawa Paris Washington DC
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.
Don't agree with this at all. Rishi would also be a first-class electoral asset: he exemplifies 'safe pair of hands' better than Starmer does while also being a more articulate and engaging speaker, which would help win back some of the normality-fetishists who dislike Boris; he's also a Leaver who's happy to spend big in Leave areas and pursue their agenda, thus keeping the new heartlands on side; he's made an excellent start at brand-building already; and he's 18 (!) years younger than Starmer. By that point, of course, no one will give a toss about what Covid decisions his 'fingerprints' are on. As a final bonus for those who prioritize such things, producing the first Asian Prime Minister would demonstrate that whereas Labour merely mouth platitudes about 'empowering' minorities, the Conservative Party empowers them by, er, putting them into power.
It would be delicious indeed if the next big change in British politics were to be supplied once again from inside the dynamic Government instead of the moribund Opposition.
We've had such rubbish PMs/LotOs recently that prioritising diversity would be a perfectly sensible criterion to apply as a voting choice.
At least you'd get one positive outcome from you choice.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Meanwhile, in the constituency I work in - the Tories have built a new multi million pound sports facility, work has started on a new hospital and plans are in for school rebuilds. No wonder the Tories took Northumberland County Council.
People want tangible stuff, not vague notions.
As I posted yesterday, Starmer needs to copy Biden and go massive and bold on economy. Jobs and infrastructure. There is a limit to how far the Tories even under Johnson will allow themselves to go on this stuff as I think an MP points out in the Guardian today.
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 do think this view of Labour people's emotions is overstated, tbh, verging on gaslighting in fact, but - yes - a sense of confidence and optimism about the country and its future is essential. To the extent this really is a problem right now it must be fixed. Of all the fixes needed, it will be one of the easiest.
The trick is to attach the problems to the government, not their supporters or the country. Blair understood that with "Britain deserves better". Johnson understands that, which is why he tries to make out that he is the country, or that criticising the government is to insult its supporters in the country.
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is that what other people have to do to get banned?!
Good to see you back isam! I had no idea why you were banned, but very glad to see you're back.
Thanks Philip. That makes two of us on both points!
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
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
Agreed. There are rays of hope and Wales is one of them. The vaccines are one more massive slice of luck (caveat: yes ok he does deserve some credit) for this most lucky of politicians. Like, see how the SNP are going to be just short of a majority. When will this bloke ever tread in some dogshit?
But, yep, exceptional times and so so lucky. Let's see how things look as the pandemic (and the buzz of the Brexit deal) recedes and we get into the long dreary hangover*.
* Course, Labour mustn't say or even hint this because it would sound all "miserable" and not at all "positive".
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.
The con parliamentary party is brimming with lots of raw talent, much of it very new. Kemi Badenoch is a solid star to watch..
"What is challenging for Johnson is that what was then TMay’s party did exceptionally well at LE2017 and on the face of it could see losses now which is very much against the current narrative."
Second comment on that thread, from me, demonstrates a rather better sense of what was going to happen:
"Worth noting that when the 2017 local election seats were fought, the Tories also had an 11% lead over Labour on the actual result - albeit on 38%-27%. If Labour are to make any gains, they look to be from LibDems (7% now versus 18% actual in 2017). Labour will stand still as against the Tories at best (note YouGov has 3% for Refuk, but as most seats won't have a candidate that could add a point or two to the Tory lead).
Those seats last fought in 2016 could prove to be horrible for Labour, where they actually finished one point ahead of the Tories on 31%, Tories on 30%, LibDems 15%, UKIP 12%. Looking at projections for these seats - where they won 1326 Councillors to the Tories 842 - may be where the gloom in Labour's internal machine is coming from.
Starmer could be down 200-250 councillors after next Thursday."
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is that what other people have to do to get banned?!
Good to see you back isam! I had no idea why you were banned, but very glad to see you're back.
Thanks Philip. That makes two of us on both points!
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
I'd recommend magnanimity, though. Ultimately, it's Mike's site so I wouldn't criticise the administrators of the site too much, particularly in public, regardless of how unfair one thinks it is.
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
Boris would get the round of drinks and suddenly realise he forgot his wallet and people will quite happily pay for the round on his behalf. Annoying as hell because he'll do that everywhere he goes.
Question - is crafty cockney a HYUFD sock puppet as with Sean / eadric / Leon? They make the same tone-deaf "argument" in the same stupid way.
When - not if - a majority of pro-independence MSPs are declared later today, the expressed will of the people will be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt the Tories will try and ignore it, and thus will absolutely seal the reality of Scottish independence further down the line.
Johnson's Blue Labour party are English Nationalists. The sooner they openly accept this the better.
Wrong, Unionist parties have won most votes in Scotland at this election, most Scots do not want indyref2 now. Spain ignored the Catalan nationalist government without even one independence referendum and it remains in Spain 4 years later.
I know you hate Brexit and are desperate for Scottish independence to punish Leavers (though it would make the rUK even more Leave) but it is not 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.
These jaundiced generalizations about large groups of people do tend to be nonsense, don't they?
Sadly for Labour proving only too true......
That's right, Felix. Jaundiced generalizations about large groups of people are only accurate when made by Tories.
Seattle Time ($) - Public records requests mishandled after Seattle mayor’s texts went missing, commission finds
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s office mishandled a series of public records requests after discovering that about 10 months of Durkan’s text messages were missing, a whistleblower investigation has determined.
The mayor’s legal counsel, Michelle Chen, engaged in improper governmental action when she decided to exclude Durkan’s missing texts from certain requests, violating the state Public Records Act, according to a report on the investigation conducted by an outside expert on behalf of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.
Additionally, Chen diverged from best practices when she decided the mayor’s office wouldn’t inform requesters that Durkan’s texts from Aug. 28, 2019 to June 25, 2020 had not been retained, according to the report published Thursday.
In a statement Thursday, Durkan’s chief of staff attributed the lost texts to an “unknown technology issue” and said the mayor believes that all her texts, calendar entries and emails should be available and quickly produced.
Comment - this story came out late Thursday. Here is link to copy of report issued by City of Seattle Ethics & Election, which is independent of the mayor, council & city administration.
AND this published by Seattle Times late Friday night:
Not just the mayor: Text messages of Seattle police and fire chiefs from June 2020 also missing
Mayor Jenny Durkan isn’t the only Seattle leader whose text messages from a key period last June were not retained and are unavailable for public disclosure, the city’s lawyers have told attorneys suing Seattle over events that occurred during that tumultuous time.
Fire Chief Harold Scoggins’ messages and then-police Chief Carmen Best’s messages also are gone for a stretch of time when police repeatedly used tear gas at demonstrations and the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone emerged, attorneys David Perez, Angelo Calfo and Patty Eakes said Friday they recently learned.
That means the texts of three top Seattle leaders during the contentious period can’t be directly reviewed, making it less likely that plaintiffs and the public will know exactly how the officials discussed and made decisions behind the scenes during key moments.
Comment - Yours truly is NOT happy about this state of affairs! Further note that Mayor Jenny Durkan announced last December that she is NOT running for re-election in this year's city elections. While this fiasco is NOT the only reason, or even the main one, it's clearly part of it.
Whether this becomes a election issue remains to be seen. Certainly is a legal one. Also a techno issue, obviously.
Personally would fire whomever was (supposedly) managing the city IT dept. AND would disbar the Mayor's legal counsel, that's for damn sure!
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?
Sadly for Labour proving only too true......
Well no. Until last night I might have agreed, but Wales confirmed why Johnson has done so well in England. Although the Conservatives can take heart in that the turnout was piss-poor and perhaps due to a lack of enthusiasm for RT, Conservative voters stayed at home they got skewered on Drakeford's vaccine performance. That being the case the same may be true for Labour in England
And of course, events dear boy....
Tha't a nice cosy blanket you found for yourself there.......
I'm also extremely uneasy about Boris becoming a landlord and renting out his house in London. That's got to be a huge conflict of interest when the chancellor inevitably begins to push for more restrictions and taxes on landlords. How much will Boris' personal financial situation play into the decision making process.
Totally off topic: The joys of extended families...
Wor Lass has a cousin on her father's side and a cousin on her mother's side who are married to a pair of siblings. This means that she has two sets of great-cousins from opposite sides of the family who are each other's cousins. It took me a few minutes to get my head around it.
Anyway, one of them got married yesterday, and we were able to watch the ceremony live on line. Cheaper than two flights to Vancouver for certain.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Meanwhile, in the constituency I work in - the Tories have built a new multi million pound sports facility, work has started on a new hospital and plans are in for school rebuilds. No wonder the Tories took Northumberland County Council.
People want tangible stuff, not vague notions.
What you mean banging on about twinning with Palestine rather than the bins doesn't get the blood flowing for many voters....
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.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is that what other people have to do to get banned?!
Good to see you back isam! I had no idea why you were banned, but very glad to see you're back.
Thanks Philip. That makes two of us on both points!
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
I'd recommend magnanimity, though. Ultimately, it's Mike's site so I wouldn't criticise the administrators of the site too much, particularly in public, regardless of how unfair one thinks it is.
Posting comments on PB is indeed a privilege NOT a right.
OK to kick at the pricks (Brit-speak) but best not to be TOO big of a prick (Yank-speak) about it!
I'm also extremely uneasy about Boris becoming a landlord and renting out his house in London. That's got to be a huge conflict of interest when the chancellor inevitably begins to push for more restrictions and taxes on landlords. How much will Boris' personal financial situation play into the decision making process.
I'm sure that the person ultimately responsible for ruling on conflicts of interest will judge the problem with appropriate care. Remind me who it is.
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is that what other people have to do to get banned?!
Good to see you back isam! I had no idea why you were banned, but very glad to see you're back.
Thanks Philip. That makes two of us on both points!
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
I'd recommend magnanimity, though. Ultimately, it's Mike's site so I wouldn't criticise the administrators of the site too much, particularly in public, regardless of how unfair one thinks it is.
Yes. Well I always ask why I have been banned, so as to see what not to do in the future, but no one will ever say. Stony silence. I am not criticising anyone, but if you were banned quite often for seemingly no reason, you might feel justified in asking why.
I was unbanned last Saturday, and then banned again on Thursday despite not having logged on to the site in the meantime! That was particularly bizarre.
Anyway it is what it is. Upsets people to have it mentioned apparently, so we can leave it there.
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.
The con parliamentary party is brimming with lots of raw talent, much of it very new. Kemi Badenoch is a solid star to watch..
Kemi’s great, and doing an awesome job on the Equalities brief. Definitely a future member of the Cabinet.
Can I make the case for @TheJezziah having his ban hammer removed? Yes he called me a nazi for calling out his anti-semitism, but he is funny...
Is that what other people have to do to get banned?!
Good to see you back isam! I had no idea why you were banned, but very glad to see you're back.
Thanks Philip. That makes two of us on both points!
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
I'd recommend magnanimity, though. Ultimately, it's Mike's site so I wouldn't criticise the administrators of the site too much, particularly in public, regardless of how unfair one thinks it is.
Does the banned person not receive an explanation? I agree it's up to the host to decide who posts & who doesn't, but if I unintentionally transgressed I'd like to think I'd be told why, as the only way to avoid making the same mistake in future.
Do our resident Nats welcome the support from English based Remainer types who are clinging to Indyref2 as the last stick left to punishment beat Boris with for having the temerity to get Brexit done ?
You do realise that when some other cause comes along like the Grenfell report or NHS under pressure when it has to catch up post Covid that they will lose interest fast ?
So Harry, which EPL club do you think is going to snap up Gerrard?
It will happen and will be Liverpool but not until after next season if its successful. A run to the CL group stages will cement that.
Comments
Unable to understand voter concerns
Unable to understand the concept of aspiration
Unable to understand the desire for home ownership
Lack of MPs/MSPs/those aspiring to be candidates with any professional/occupational experience beyond politics
In Scotland, literally nothing to say other than 'We're not the Tories, vote for the Union'
Inability to understand that 'the North' is as socially and economically complex as anywhere else, and is not just all flat caps, whippets and racists
My message to Labour - stop reading The Guardian and watching Ken Loach films.
Rep. Elise Stefanik is privately telling GOP colleagues that she'll only serve one term in leadership before seeking the top job on the House Education and Labor Committee.
. . . Stefaik’s pledge to limit her time in GOP leadership is just one of several assurances she is making to other House Republicans as she works quickly to lock down support for her leadership bid. While she is widely expected to clinch the post after embattled Conference Chair Liz Cheney likely gets the boot next week, some lawmakers on the far-right have grumbled about her voting scorecard. Other members of the conference have complained they feel boxed in by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is whipping members hard to support Stefanik.
While other GOP members expressed interest in the position, so far none have formally stepped into the race to challenge Stefanik.
Stefanik, a moderate turned Trump ally, is also vowing to toe the party line and not buck leadership whenever they are whipping for or against something — a promise intended to assuage colleagues that she will not rock the boat like Cheney. The current No. 3 not only voted to impeach Donald Trump but also bucked the party a handful of other times on certain votes. . . .
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/07/stefanik-2022-gop-leadership-485844
And for those asking when it might declare - current prediction is late afternoon, and I would not be surprised on past form if that slipped
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1390969054312247299?s=20
The way the List works seems weird at times. Take Mid Scotland and Fife for instance - in 2011 they held or gained all but one of the constituencies, but still ended up with one List MSP; in 2016 they again had all but one of the constituencies, but this time they lost their only MSP.
And of course, events dear boy....
The first referendum would be indicative, i.e. for Scots to express a wish that terms be investigated and negotiated in advance of a final decision being made, so that they know of the practicalities and outcomes involved upfront.
Then a 2nd referendum would determine the final outcome with the electorate having been furnished with the information necessary to make an enlightened choice.
Sensible answer to a silly question.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1390968667844890625?s=20
http://www.porcupine.org/porcupine/porcupines.html
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1390952819692290050?s=20
@helenlewis
·
1h
The existence of Twitter is terrible for Labour. It means MPs litigate factional beefs right in front of journalists. And the most pious, unbearable activists get the most engagement, both from fans and people being angry about them in turn.
Idea for Labour: stay off Twitter
iirc Biden's number one campaign rule back last autumn was everyone on the campaign off Twitter.
The drawback of independence - restrictions to trade and travel, for example - is the benefit of Union. Without putting the two side-by-side, the electorate doesn't get a fair picture.
Why? Human nature,esp. for election officials being constantly asked by candidates, activists and (most esp) journalists.
Very similar to response of parents/drivers when asked on long car rides "are we almost there yet?" ad infinitum.
Iain Duncan Starmer says he will turn up the volume and act. Do so! Purge the lunatics and the unions or accept the show is over.
He won't. It's over.
I look forward to the Labour "Here to Hear" roadshow.
So, 70-74 seats (max) - which is clearly enough for IndyRef2 (majority of 11-19).
A little bit ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament results of 69 pro IndyRef MSPs, and that's entirely down to the Greens.
You do realise that when some other cause comes along like the Grenfell report or NHS under pressure when it has to catch up post Covid that they will lose interest fast ?
It would be delicious indeed if the next big change in British politics were to be supplied once again from inside the dynamic Government instead of the moribund Opposition.
I’d suggest FPTP is helping to keep Labour alive at the moment.
@oflynnsocial
·
3m
The trick is to distinguish between a correct narrative ("Lab can't win because its electoral coalition has collapsed") from an incorrect one ("Boris is on the ropes because wallpaper")!
It doesn't just apply to twitter either!
It's much harder if she's in the minority of votes for both list and constituency seats next to the Unionists.
He may be a flat track bully, but he ran away from
- challenging May
- Andrew Neil
- journalists in general (see fridge: hiding in...)
Last time even the SNPs was so caveated and convoluted it wasn't really a demand for a referendum. This time it is.
2021 does.
You being a pleb will of course try and insist that a constituency trend is the same as the list trend.
We all SAY we want justice, but most of the time what we REALLY are asking for is mercy!
When - not if - a majority of pro-independence MSPs are declared later today, the expressed will of the people will be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt the Tories will try and ignore it, and thus will absolutely seal the reality of Scottish independence further down the line.
Johnson's Blue Labour party are English Nationalists. The sooner they openly accept this the better.
This is not quite betting on Biden after the election but it is betti g on Biden in Pennsylvania after the election level to back No Majority.
@OwenJones84
·
1h
Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
And the Lib Dems are still suffering the aftermath of their 2015 results.
"We also have a network of eight offices worldwide who work to promote Scottish interests overseas and strenthen (sic) our relationships with countries and continents. These offices are located in:"
Beijing
Berlin
Brussels
Dublin
London
Ottawa
Paris
Washington DC
London. "Overseas".
If the Union side (Remain/No, say), won a more convincing victory than in 2014, that would likely put the issue to bed for a generation. There does seem to be an acceptance that Brexit has changed things but that actually offers those opposed to a neverendum a good argument: there is unlikely to be any similar level of constitutional change that would merit such a quick revisiting of the question. And as Brexit proved, support for the idea, even with many firmly in each camp, still drifted by as much as 10%.
In respect of Wilson, his EEC referendum pretty much ended debate on the issue for 30+ years. Yes, Labour was committed to withdrawal in 1983 (though not 1979), but Labour was also unelectable at the time and going against the referendum was just another sign of that. True, that was based on a 2:1 outcome which is highly unlikely in Scotland but I wouldn't be surprised if, on a level field and with the genuine consequences of independence in front of them, the unionists couldn't outperform the 55% from last time.
As for Johnson, his argument would be 1. you learn lessons from experiences and use them to do it better next time, and 2. ultimately, the UK did have to have a vote on the deal, via the 2019 general election.
People want tangible stuff, not vague notions.
At least you'd get one positive outcome from you choice.
This will take a new SC I guess.
But actually, the repeated banning for no discernible reason, and the lack of explanation as to why it happens time and time again, makes me feel like one of my heroes, Cool Hand Luke - constantly fighting against the nasty bosses, so it's not all bad
@graceblakeley
·
3h
Replying to
@graceblakeley
Mealy mouthed middle of the road bull shit ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
Labour has a choice to make: socialism or Pasokification.
Sometimes I don't see how Lab can remain as one party much longer.
But, yep, exceptional times and so so lucky. Let's see how things look as the pandemic (and the buzz of the Brexit deal) recedes and we get into the long dreary hangover*.
* Course, Labour mustn't say or even hint this because it would sound all "miserable" and not at all "positive".
"What is challenging for Johnson is that what was then TMay’s party did exceptionally well at LE2017 and on the face of it could see losses now which is very much against the current narrative."
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/04/30/setting-the-scene-for-next-thursdays-local-elections/
Second comment on that thread, from me, demonstrates a rather better sense of what was going to happen:
"Worth noting that when the 2017 local election seats were fought, the Tories also had an 11% lead over Labour on the actual result - albeit on 38%-27%. If Labour are to make any gains, they look to be from LibDems (7% now versus 18% actual in 2017). Labour will stand still as against the Tories at best (note YouGov has 3% for Refuk, but as most seats won't have a candidate that could add a point or two to the Tory lead).
Those seats last fought in 2016 could prove to be horrible for Labour, where they actually finished one point ahead of the Tories on 31%, Tories on 30%, LibDems 15%, UKIP 12%. Looking at projections for these seats - where they won 1326 Councillors to the Tories 842 - may be where the gloom in Labour's internal machine is coming from.
Starmer could be down 200-250 councillors after next Thursday."
Currently:
Cons up 172
Labour down 208....
* buffs nails *
I know you hate Brexit and are desperate for Scottish independence to punish Leavers (though it would make the rUK even more Leave) but it is not happening
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s office mishandled a series of public records requests after discovering that about 10 months of Durkan’s text messages were missing, a whistleblower investigation has determined.
The mayor’s legal counsel, Michelle Chen, engaged in improper governmental action when she decided to exclude Durkan’s missing texts from certain requests, violating the state Public Records Act, according to a report on the investigation conducted by an outside expert on behalf of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.
Additionally, Chen diverged from best practices when she decided the mayor’s office wouldn’t inform requesters that Durkan’s texts from Aug. 28, 2019 to June 25, 2020 had not been retained, according to the report published Thursday.
In a statement Thursday, Durkan’s chief of staff attributed the lost texts to an “unknown technology issue” and said the mayor believes that all her texts, calendar entries and emails should be available and quickly produced.
Comment - this story came out late Thursday. Here is link to copy of report issued by City of Seattle Ethics & Election, which is independent of the mayor, council & city administration.
http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/Meetings/2021-05-10/item4.pdf
AND this published by Seattle Times late Friday night:
Not just the mayor: Text messages of Seattle police and fire chiefs from June 2020 also missing
Mayor Jenny Durkan isn’t the only Seattle leader whose text messages from a key period last June were not retained and are unavailable for public disclosure, the city’s lawyers have told attorneys suing Seattle over events that occurred during that tumultuous time.
Fire Chief Harold Scoggins’ messages and then-police Chief Carmen Best’s messages also are gone for a stretch of time when police repeatedly used tear gas at demonstrations and the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone emerged, attorneys David Perez, Angelo Calfo and Patty Eakes said Friday they recently learned.
That means the texts of three top Seattle leaders during the contentious period can’t be directly reviewed, making it less likely that plaintiffs and the public will know exactly how the officials discussed and made decisions behind the scenes during key moments.
Comment - Yours truly is NOT happy about this state of affairs! Further note that Mayor Jenny Durkan announced last December that she is NOT running for re-election in this year's city elections. While this fiasco is NOT the only reason, or even the main one, it's clearly part of it.
Whether this becomes a election issue remains to be seen. Certainly is a legal one. Also a techno issue, obviously.
Personally would fire whomever was (supposedly) managing the city IT dept. AND would disbar the Mayor's legal counsel, that's for damn sure!
Wor Lass has a cousin on her father's side and a cousin on her mother's side who are married to a pair of siblings. This means that she has two sets of great-cousins from opposite sides of the family who are each other's cousins. It took me a few minutes to get my head around it.
Anyway, one of them got married yesterday, and we were able to watch the ceremony live on line. Cheaper than two flights to Vancouver for certain.
OK to kick at the pricks (Brit-speak) but best not to be TOO big of a prick (Yank-speak) about it!
Edit - Talk about yer hostage to fortune!!
I was unbanned last Saturday, and then banned again on Thursday despite not having logged on to the site in the meantime! That was particularly bizarre.
Anyway it is what it is. Upsets people to have it mentioned apparently, so we can leave it there.
That's a view.
The other two are of no interest to the voters of Hartlepool.