Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 3m Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 3m Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 3m Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.
So Labour, about having a female leader..... Any decade soon?
Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.
More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?
The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?
You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England. It is not just a big urban centre.
As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Yes. Exactly this. The media loves a “party in crisis and internal war” story, and he’s choosing to give it to them.
Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.
A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.
More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?
The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?
You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England. It is not just a big urban centre.
As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
I think AB knows he is finished in national politics
Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.
More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?
The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?
You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England. It is not just a big urban centre.
As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
This should be the LibDems moment shouldn’t it? In the old days they’d have been up for a fight in Batley and Spen and could have performed well.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
The narrative is still a Tory 36%, Labour 29%, LDs 17% NEV lead nationally of the votes cast on Thursday.
Only area Labour got a swing to them was 4% in county council seats which voted Remain.
There was a 1% swing to the Tories in district council seats which voted Remain, a swing to the Tories of 3% in county council seats which voted Leave and a swing to the Tories of 11% in district council seats which voted Leave
Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.
More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?
The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?
You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England. It is not just a big urban centre.
As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
I think AB knows he is finished in national politics
Sky News boosting him like he is some sort of Barack Obama level politician.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
Angela Rayner is one of the Labour Party’s most authentic communicators, and with a northern accent. Not totally clear tonight how her sacking helps win back the red wall.
Ugh, I hate sentiments like that. As someone with a northern accent, I can't stand how she speaks! Like, we all have telephone voices and perhaps she should use hers when on the TV. As to authentic, I couldn't say but she's authentically rubbish. She strikes entirely the wrong tone and her bullish attitude towards 'Tory cronyism' certainly turned me off (momentarily) from that issue. The further away the angry shoutey contingency are away from the levers of power in the Labour Party, the better. She might be useful on the attack, and it's useful to have a partisan who can go low, but I do not rate her.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
No. I know. But you take my point.
I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.
A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"
“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.
One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."
Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.
A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
Particularly IF you keep two sets of books - one for real, other for show!
Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.
I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.
Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.
You really are a tool aren't you.
Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?
The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.
Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.
1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order 2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down 3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament
Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.
As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.
To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
Yeah, the Scottish Parliament can't simply give itself that competence as @RochdalePioneers seems to be suggesting.
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Sorry to hear that, as Uncle Joe could beat HIM like a gong.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
Even better would be to let Sturgeon hold it, without UKG assent, then get every unionist to boycott it, result: a failed referendum and the Nats look like dangerous idiots.
Sturgeon won't fall into that trap, but neither will Boris fall into her trap. = Stalemate, potentially for many years
So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.
Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.
Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"
“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.
One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."
So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.
Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.
Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
Bums on Westminster seats is all that matters, as Union matters are reserved to Westminster
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
"Bloody Hands" Hawley is way tooooooo toxic, far toooooooo risky.
Plus ticket with TWO flaming a-holes is at least one too many.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
No. I know. But you take my point.
I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
No of course not. Just the time to start an internal Party war.
So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.
Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.
Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
Bums on Westminster seats is all that matters, as Union matters are reserved to Westminster
Even on that, you are still subverting democracy by inventing obsessive nonsense abouty percentage points. Away to Smithfield with you.
One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"
“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.
One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."
"They would say that, wouldn't they"
And
"We love him for the enemies he's made"
Twitter firestorm..😂😂😂😂😂.. Twitter is not the real world.
Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.
A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
Doesn't work, for some reason they obsess over the potential losses when it comes to spread betting.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
No. I know. But you take my point.
I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
No of course not. Just the time to start an internal Party war.
So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.
Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.
Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
They are different things
If a referendum was within the competence of the Scottish parliament then MSPs would be what matters
But it isn’t. So the SNP has to make an argument based on the democratic will of the people to pressure Westminster. But less than 50% of votes were for parties that back a referendum
Notice how by sacking Rayner, the conversation has shifted (somewhat) away from Labour's thrashing in it's (former) heartlands, and to Starmer versus the Labour left?
MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Yes. Exactly this. The media loves a “party in crisis and internal war” story, and he’s choosing to give it to them.
It could turn out to be quite an astute move. The Party is in crisis anyway after the last few days So why not do what you need to in the aftermath of it to get it out the way ?
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
I thought the secretary of state for Scotland has to actually make that decision though. If they don't intervene it goes for royal ascent.
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
He said in the interview he’s up for re-election in 2024 and that is his focus. It certainly came across as genuine and with no caveats. My guess is that he thinks he has little chance of the nomination given DeSantis and others, and a better bet might be to become AG if the GOP wins in 2024
Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.
More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?
The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?
You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England. It is not just a big urban centre.
As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
This should be the LibDems moment shouldn’t it? In the old days they’d have been up for a fight in Batley and Spen and could have performed well.
Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.
A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
I bet only very modest sums.
Genuinely. I also bet solely out of my winnings. Why due to my incredible acumen are vast and near limitless.
Notice how by sacking Rayner, the conversation has shifted (somewhat) away from Labour's thrashing in it's (former) heartlands, and to Starmer versus the Labour left?
MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.
Starmer has to go. Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come. So what does he do? No political instinct at all.
Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
No. I know. But you take my point.
I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
No of course not. Just the time to start an internal Party war.
Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.
I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.
Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.
You really are a tool aren't you.
Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?
The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.
Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.
1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order 2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down 3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament
Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.
As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.
To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.
I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.
SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies) Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.
KA BOOM.
Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?
If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
I'm sure all the arguments have been deployed on both sides of the question so no point in me putting yet another one on that.
All I'll say is that given Scotland is clearly split right down the middle on independence (ref: John Curtice), the realistic options appear to be limited to either:
1 - do nothing, endure years of the same arguments on both sides and hope it all sorts itself out one day by the pro-indy people getting bored or otherwise, or; 2 - do something to resolve the whole thing, like, say, having a proper discussion on what independence might actually mean for good or for bad and a binary referendum on whether it's wanted or not at the end of that (with, potentially, a confirmatory referendum at the end given we've all learned a truckload from the Brexit experience), or; 3 - do something else that actually nobody at all wants but is seen to be trying to somehow appeal to both sides (FEDERALISM KLAXON)
Only the fact that 1) is essentially mutually beneficial to both SNP and Conservative, at least in the short-to-medium term, is why that'll be the route we end up going down.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
It has to be overruled by the SofS or thrown out by the Supreme Court to have no force in law. Otherwise it becomes law.
Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.
I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.
Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.
You really are a tool aren't you.
Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?
The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.
Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.
1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order 2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down 3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament
Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.
As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.
To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.
I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.
Parliamentary seats is the issue for the Unionists.
Almost none at Westminster. MInority at Holyrood.
To argue for ang other criterion subverts the entire working of Westminster as a representative democracy, as per Bagehot et aliis.
That Labour winner of the Merseyside PCC vote is going to be busy. With her colleagues!
There's been very little comment on the Liverpool mayoral election. Don't know anything about the winner (Joanne Anderson no relation) Can't help but feel they could have done with an outsider though rather than a Labour figure.
It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer's thinking was:
1) We are losing all the Red Wall because of Brexit and culture wars and stuff. 2) They like big strong men (like Boris) and don't like women or foreigners very much, obvs 3) I'll show them I'm a big strong man too.. hmm, wonder how.. 4) I know! I will sack all the women - ha!
SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies) Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.
KA BOOM.
Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?
If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
There are two DPOs at Holyrood. But they only abstain when actually presiding IIRC.
When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
It has to be overruled by the SofS or thrown out by the Supreme Court to have no force in law. Otherwise it becomes law.
Didn’t know about the first one. Surely that dooms it anyway? Is Alister Jack really going to wave it through?
Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
He said in the interview he’s up for re-election in 2024 and that is his focus. It certainly came across as genuine and with no caveats. My guess is that he thinks he has little chance of the nomination given DeSantis and others, and a better bet might be to become AG if the GOP wins in 2024
Any President who'd appoint Hawley as AG would need to have their fool head examined.
NOT because of his actions before, during & after the Putsch (though these SHOULD bar him, indeed disbar him).
Rather because he is a Crassus with a VERY lean and hungry look. And would stick a shiv his his POTUS's back quicker than Brutus did Caesar IF he thought he would ultimately benefit.
In the American political system, Job #1 politically for any Attorney General, is guarding the President's back. Not in the Constitution or statue, but very true nonetheless.
Something that hapless Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions TRIED to do.
And that Janet Reno spectacularly FAILED to do for Bill Clinton.
Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.
If the price of Rayner’s firing is he has to hang on to Dodds, I don’t care what Rayner was doing he’s made the wrong choice.
It could be a "it's not a demotion- counting the little sticky labels we use on the window posters is a vital job, and you're just the person to do it" type of non demotion.
(I can see why Dodds might be useful to have around- she seems smart. But she's visibly wilting in her current position; she needs a thinking job out of the limelight.)
More importantly- for most of my life, ability to run a political party effectively was a reasonable proxy for potential to be OK at government. This stuff isn't that difficult. Is it too much to ask for one party that isn't run by idiotic chancers who are too clever by half?
Heard about Rayner’s sacking on the car radio driving back from my count. A shock decision; I will be very interested to read comment upthread about it whilst eating my pizza.
A tiny footnote to election night, but I am pleased to have been re-elected to the town council, fourth out of twelve. Particularly as I am a recent arrival to a town that heavily prizes people with deep local roots.
SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies) Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.
KA BOOM.
Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?
If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
There are two DPOs at Holyrood. But they only abstain when actually presiding IIRC.
Comments
https://youtu.be/nBXrZKSNWN0
Sacking Nandy?
Only area Labour got a swing to them was 4% in county council seats which voted Remain.
There was a 1% swing to the Tories in district council seats which voted Remain, a swing to the Tories of 3% in county council seats which voted Leave and a swing to the Tories of 11% in district council seats which voted Leave
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57040175
Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.
And DYOR.
Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675
Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084
One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563
“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.
And my personal favourite
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881
One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."
Sturgeon won't fall into that trap, but neither will Boris fall into her trap. = Stalemate, potentially for many years
Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
And
"We love him for the enemies he's made"
Plus ticket with TWO flaming a-holes is at least one too many.
Just the time to start an internal Party war.
Agreed, he’s an idiot.
If a referendum was within the competence of the Scottish parliament then MSPs would be what matters
But it isn’t. So the SNP has to make an argument based on the democratic will of the people to pressure Westminster. But less than 50% of votes were for parties that back a referendum
MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.
Genuinely. I also bet solely out of my winnings. Why due to my incredible acumen are vast and near limitless.
3 Con
3 Lab
1 SNP
SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.
Everyone on politics Twitter loves a good Labour civil war
Isn't it amalgamation of like 5 councils?
I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1391105556988022784
Labour faces "obliteration" if "cabal of middle class Remainers" continues to treats voters with contempt
One option to replace Angela Rayner as Labour Party chairman is Wes Streeting,
I’m told
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1391110059485274114
If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391102420525191181
An old Labour chum messages: "The man is as fucking stupid as he is boring."
All I'll say is that given Scotland is clearly split right down the middle on independence (ref: John Curtice), the realistic options appear to be limited to either:
1 - do nothing, endure years of the same arguments on both sides and hope it all sorts itself out one day by the pro-indy people getting bored or otherwise, or;
2 - do something to resolve the whole thing, like, say, having a proper discussion on what independence might actually mean for good or for bad and a binary referendum on whether it's wanted or not at the end of that (with, potentially, a confirmatory referendum at the end given we've all learned a truckload from the Brexit experience), or;
3 - do something else that actually nobody at all wants but is seen to be trying to somehow appeal to both sides (FEDERALISM KLAXON)
Only the fact that 1) is essentially mutually beneficial to both SNP and Conservative, at least in the short-to-medium term, is why that'll be the route we end up going down.
Almost none at Westminster.
MInority at Holyrood.
To argue for ang other criterion subverts the entire working of Westminster as a representative democracy, as per Bagehot et aliis.
Sturgeon must be heart broken.
It sounds like this is how it may shape up ...
Demotions: Anneliese Dodds, Lisa Nandy, Jon Ashworth and Nick Brown
Promotions: Wes Streeting, Rachel Reeves, Jess Phillips, Sarah Jones and Steve Reed
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1391111269999169536
1) We are losing all the Red Wall because of Brexit and culture wars and stuff.
2) They like big strong men (like Boris) and don't like women or foreigners very much, obvs
3) I'll show them I'm a big strong man too.. hmm, wonder how..
4) I know! I will sack all the women - ha!
I'm not sure I'm joking.
NOT because of his actions before, during & after the Putsch (though these SHOULD bar him, indeed disbar him).
Rather because he is a Crassus with a VERY lean and hungry look. And would stick a shiv his his POTUS's back quicker than Brutus did Caesar IF he thought he would ultimately benefit.
In the American political system, Job #1 politically for any Attorney General, is guarding the President's back. Not in the Constitution or statue, but very true nonetheless.
Something that hapless Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions TRIED to do.
And that Janet Reno spectacularly FAILED to do for Bill Clinton.
(I can see why Dodds might be useful to have around- she seems smart. But she's visibly wilting in her current position; she needs a thinking job out of the limelight.)
More importantly- for most of my life, ability to run a political party effectively was a reasonable proxy for potential to be OK at government. This stuff isn't that difficult. Is it too much to ask for one party that isn't run by idiotic chancers who are too clever by half?
A tiny footnote to election night, but I am pleased to have been re-elected to the town council, fourth out of twelve. Particularly as I am a recent arrival to a town that heavily prizes people with deep local roots.
Electing a Presiding Officer could be fun...
SNP source says: "His hat had more chance of being elected."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/george-galloway-fails-latest-bid-24068268