Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Kate Forbes has Tim Farron esque religious issues to contend with that would probably halt any leadership ambitions.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
Can someone please explain why Ben Houchen should not be the rightful King of the North, and not Andy Burnham?
Not only is he actually further north but his performance far outshines Burnham. He won 6pc more of the vote, and did it in a region which - unlike Greater Manchester - was not historically fertile ground. The fact it is now is in no small part to Houchen.
He also gets things done. Regardless of what you think of Freeports and nationalising the airports, he kickstarted a lot of the progress. Burnham just rode on the coat tails of what Manchester City Council had been doing for years before he came along.
No contest really
There is a difference in the roles. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has actual powers. The Mayor of the Tees Valley doesn't. Houchen has been re-elected after a magnificent social media campaign taking credit for the work of others.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Kate Forbes has Tim Farron esque religious issues to contend with that would probably halt any leadership ambitions.
Being a member of the Free Church of Scotland is a bar to leadership of the SNP?
Blimey, that sounds like a pretty intolerant and narrow minded party to me.
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
He should rewatch Blackadder and learn:
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
Giving vent to his frustration by lashing out at a woman suggests his apparent lack of personality is just a disguise for something much worse.
It is a serious point though. Labour are never going to beat Johnson on personality. He's Boris. The cheery, avuncular, amusing, rather eccentric love rat who puts on TV documentaries on weird subjects and makes a complete fool of himself on Have I Got News For You and Top Gear. OK, he's a phoney and it's all sham, but it's amazing sham. You can see why people lap it up, not least with his own guarded admissions of it ('I think you should allow for the possibility that under this carefully crafted exterior of a blithering idiot is, in fact, a blithering idiot.')
They need to beat him on policy. And there he's actually very weak. He's confused, incoherent, contradictory. Many of his policies are actually impossible (changes to the school year spring to mind, as does Boris Bridge to Northern Ireland). His government is accident prone and stuffed with time servers. He changes his mind as it suits his purpose (i.e. staying popular and therefore in power).
A forensic Opposition with a serious programme could challenge on this. Sure, maybe not enough to get back to a majority. But it is 51 years since a majority of more than 20 was overturned in a single election, and that was indeed the only time it had happened since 1906. A serious programme, with an understanding of how that could be used in coalition negotiations, could provide a pathway to power.
That's what Starmer could - should - have been doing. He's been incredibly unlucky with the pandemic. But if he wants to sort matters out, he needs solid policy and he needs it right now.
So far, the signs are discouraging. At the moment, Labour are losing out on charisma *and* policy.
Which, bluntly, is quite extraodinary.
What is the evidence that we want anything serious from out politicians? Surely we just want to be entertained and amused and no one is ever going to beat Boris at that.
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
I do hope Hampshire hold on for the draw here. Show the same guts Gloucestershire showed (which, with hindsight, seem to have spectacularly derailed their season).
Not just for the LOLs, but because it will give Glaws a huge cushion at the top of Group 2.
Albeit, if Hampshire lose it makes it that much harder for *them* to catch us...
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Kate Forbes has Tim Farron esque religious issues to contend with that would probably halt any leadership ambitions.
Being a member of the Free Church of Scotland is a bar to leadership of the SNP?
Blimey, that sounds like a pretty intolerant and narrow minded party to me.
It's not the FCS that is the issue AFAIK but LGBT(etc) activists unhappy with her views on the transgender thing.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Kate Forbes has Tim Farron esque religious issues to contend with that would probably halt any leadership ambitions.
Being a member of the Free Church of Scotland is a bar to leadership of the SNP?
Blimey, that sounds like a pretty intolerant and narrow minded party to me.
Being anti-trans would be, especially now all the dinosaurs have decamped to Alba.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
His Perfect Campaigner is made up of two Ps. His optimistic shambling Personality and his sharp Positioning "Get Brexit Done".
Pisspoor executive is Performance. He's been lucky so far. I can't see it lasting until 2024.
The stick I got when I first said Starmer was too dull to succeed vs Boris!
IPSOS-MORI should be along with their personality ratings in the next month, so far Boris has won 64-30 (when Con VI lead was 5) and 67-25 (3) vs Sir Keir. I think the second lead of 42 is only bettered by Blair when facing Hague in Oct 97 (50-5) , with Thatcher vs Foot in April 83 (38) the next best
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
Let me put it this way.
If there’s a referendum and “no” wins, then Scotland stays in the Union and presumably you are happy.
If there’s a referendum and “yes” wins then the Scots get what they want, and although sad yourself you can presumably be happy for them.
By denying a referendum you might be suppressing option A, which is fine. But you might also be suppressing option B. Does that sit comfortably with you? And if so, why? Why do you want anyone forced into the Union?
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
His Perfect Campaigner is made up of two Ps. His optimistic shambling Personality and his sharp Positioning "Get Brexit Done".
Pisspoor executive is Performance. He's been lucky so far. I can't see it lasting until 2024.
The stick I got when I first said Starmer was too dull to succeed vs Boris!
IPSOS-MORI should be along with their personality ratings in the next month, so far Boris has won 64-30 (when Con VI lead was 5) and 67-25 (3) vs Sir Keir. I think the second lead of 42 is only bettered by Blair when facing Hague in Oct 97 (50-5) , with Thatcher vs Foot in April 83 (38) the next best
snap
when I called it Sir Keir Bland and said he was dull as dishwater the Labour contingent went off on one.
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
Yes please, HYUFD! This is really interesting, for obvious reasons. One (or, at least in logical principle, both) of you is plainly making a mistake. The coconut goes to the first to find it.
And I see no reason to give either constituency or list votes primacy. Add them together and do the sums.
Is the problem that someone is averaging two [edit, sorry!] two PERCENTAGES, each calculated on a diffetent sample size, as if they were of equal weight?
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
We are going to claim all the spoilt papers, on the basis that they weren't for the parties of independence.....
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
We are going to claim all the spoilt papers, on the basis that they weren't for the parties of independence.....
Plus all the votes of anyone of Scots heritage anywhere else in the U.K. And Canada. No SNP votes there.
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
Let me put it this way.
If there’s a referendum and “no” wins, then Scotland stays in the Union and presumably you are happy.
If there’s a referendum and “yes” wins then the Scots get what they want, and although sad yourself you can presumably be happy for them.
By denying a referendum you might be suppressing option A, which is fine. But you might also be suppressing option B. Does that sit comfortably with you? And if so, why? Why do you want anyone forced into the Union?
If Scots voted Yes I would certainly not be happy for them at ending our Union and weakening our place in the world and damaging our economy. Once a generation has elapsed since 2014 indyref2 may be allowed and if Yes won I would respect the result but I would not be happy about it and I would also expect the rUK government to end all public spending and transfers to Scotland immediately and take as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU took with London after Brexit.
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
I was a member of Surrey for a number of years, but stopped when it became clear that they were not playing at the Oval in the school holidays, which was the only time of year I could reasonably get there to see them. Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
Wow, that even works internationally. Impressive stuff from the Championship.
Over 3000 of us watching. That's a good turnout for the Championship.
On the Glos v Surrey game, they had a couple of ex-Surrey and Australia players watching (can't remember whom) and sending in sarky comments on the live feed. Which was quite fun!
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
Let me put it this way.
If there’s a referendum and “no” wins, then Scotland stays in the Union and presumably you are happy.
If there’s a referendum and “yes” wins then the Scots get what they want, and although sad yourself you can presumably be happy for them.
By denying a referendum you might be suppressing option A, which is fine. But you might also be suppressing option B. Does that sit comfortably with you? And if so, why? Why do you want anyone forced into the Union?
If Scots voted Yes I would certainly not be happy for them at ending our Union and weakening our place in the world and damaging our economy. Once a generation has elapsed since 2014 indyref2 may be allowed and if Yes won I would respect the result but I would not be happy about it and I would also expect the rUK government to end all public spending and transfers to Scotland immediately and take as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU took with London after Brexit.
You might want to cut the generation nonsense. It's been an outright, erm, terminological inexactitude for rather too long.
Understand Starmer wanted to move Rayner to shad cab brief. She kicked off, started making demands. He refused. She began last night’s briefing war. In which case, it was very badly handled media wise, but her and her team ambushed him, and it indicates he was right to move her.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
But I'm not sure.
The thing is, someone has to take the mantle of speaking to that alternative narrative- it's too big a group of people (yada yada tracker Brexit mistake). If Labour don't, someone else will.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
Yes please, HYUFD! This is really interesting, for obvious reasons. One (or, at least in logical principle, both) of you is plainly making a mistake. The coconut goes to the first to find it.
And I see no reason to give either constituency or list votes primacy. Add them together and do the sums.
Is the problem that someone is averaging two [edit, sorry!] two PERCENTAGES, each calculated on a diffetent sample size, as if they were of equal weight?
I have no interest in percentages generated from votes cast - instead I am looking at votes cast. Unless all of the minor parties were openly pledged to the union (and I include Alba in the minor parties) then it isn't close.
HYUFD seems to think there are two classes of MSP. Two classes of votes. Neither are true.
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
I was a member of Surrey for a number of years, but stopped when it became clear that they were not playing at the Oval in the school holidays, which was the only time of year I could reasonably get there to see them. Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
I was a member of Middlesex until last year when, but with no cricket due to Covid they offered no form of refund. Many other counties asked to keep members’ cash that year as a donation in exchange for some sort of future benefit. Middlesex just took it. I hope I am not alone and that they learn a lesson.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Quite right. We can set aside the majority of votes on Thursday being cast in favour of a 2nd referendum. Some poll of a small number of people has precedence.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
That's interesting observation. It does seem that the closer one gets to the mental fugue state that is tory party membership the greater the salience of 𝓞𝓤𝓡 𝓟𝓡𝓔𝓒𝓘𝓞𝓤𝓢 𝓤𝓝𝓘𝓞𝓝.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
All the best'
Hopefully he'll do even better, given that the opinion poll analysis generally comes up with the answer he first thought of! Residents expect more from their councillor than that....
Indeed, and I would like to repeat my congratulations on your own success and your story of your public service
I know we do not share the same political views, but I do admire those who give service to the community.
A friend of ours was one such person (and a lib dem) and we voted for her in every local council election
When I was newly bereaved, it was a lifesaver, and indeed it was the certainty of imminent bereavement that tipped me into going for it, on top of a full time job. After nearly thirty years continuous, thinking and working like a councillor has become second nature, and I would be bereaved without it. Although the step down from principal authority has been a welcome lightening of load.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Wow, that even works internationally. Impressive stuff from the Championship.
Over 3000 of us watching. That's a good turnout for the Championship.
On the Glos v Surrey game, they had a couple of ex-Surrey and Australia players watching (can't remember whom) and sending in sarky comments on the live feed. Which was quite fun!
It’s good to see quite a few of the minor sports eschew selling TV rights completely, when the TV provider is probably not going to show every match live, and put it online on their own platform instead.
I was watching the European F3 championship race earlier, which is actually a support race for F1 this weekend but not part of the TV agreement. They put that on Youtube too.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
I think he’s discounting that votes of anyone Scottish. After all, what’s it got to do with them....?
Given the reliability of stats on the BBC and so on, and for instance the risk of incompetent rounding errors, I really would like to see where the problem lies. They can't both be right, ans if one of them won't prove that he is right, then ...
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
Percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens combined on the constituency vote was 49%, percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens and Alba combined was 50.1% on the list vote.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
Percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens combined on the constituency vote was 49% on the constituency votes, percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens and Alba combined was 50.1%.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
But you can't combine percentages like that. You have to use the raw data [edit] and THEN calculate, or keep them completely separate.
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
But I'm not sure.
David Herdson, on twitter the other day, asked "Why should Labour even be 'about' the 'working class' (whatever that means)? Why not define itself by values and ideology instead?"
Which seems like a similar theme.
I was quite taken aback by it to be honest. Labour, to me, by definition should always be about whats best for the working class/low paid workers, that is the reason why I have never been able to comprehend their love for FOM, which as Maurice Glasman put it (I think), is "The biggest capitalist con trick invented by man"
...from about 20 mins in, very interesting analysis of the effects of global capitalism on the working class from a left wing perspective, which I pretty much 100% agree with
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
Percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens combined on the constituency vote was 49% on the constituency votes, percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens and Alba combined was 50.1%.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
But you can't combine percentages like that. You have to use the raw data [edit] and THEN calculate, or keep them completely separate.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
Percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens combined on the constituency vote was 49%, percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens and Alba combined was 50.1% on the list vote.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
That’s a mathematical nonsense when the total numbers are known.
I mean it’s a nonsense when the numbers aren’t known, but can be argued as a way of making a bit of a guess.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
Are we really arguing over 13,000 votes
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
No parties did outpoll Yes parties on the constituency vote and overall percentage wise 50.4% No on the constituency vote to 50.1% Yes on the list vote.
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
How about you show me the maths that has No winning. I have shown you my maths - the official results so *the* maths. You show me yours.
On the constituency vote Scottish Conservatives 21.9%, Scottish Labour 21.6%, Scottish LDs 6.9% =50.4%.
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
You aren't getting onto the game because you know that you have been repeatedly posting lies about how the people of Scotland voted and how the people of Scotland think.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
Combining the constituency and list percentages of the vote cast for all the Nationalist parties, only 49% of the votes cast were for the SNP, Greens and Alba.
We want to see your arithmetic, please, from raw vote data. There is a real rtisk of rounding errors if you just use percentages. And if the number of remain and list votes was different.
Percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens combined on the constituency vote was 49% on the constituency votes, percentage of the votes cast for the SNP and Greens and Alba combined was 50.1%.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
But you can't combine percentages like that. You have to use the raw data [edit] and THEN calculate, or keep them completely separate.
That would be a dramatic break with tradition.
It's like saying that 15% of apples and 25% of oranges werte rotten, so 20% of all fruit was rotten.
If you are going to go by all fruit then you have to count up all the fruit first then calculate the percentage.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
Are we really arguing over 13,000 votes
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
That's a reasonable enough position to hold - about it being borderline full stop - enough, but HYUFD was going on about his dodgy data as if they were massively conclusive. So if the data show the opposite, it's correct to use his logic to draw the opposite conclusion.
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
But I'm not sure.
The thing is, someone has to take the mantle of speaking to that alternative narrative- it's too big a group of people (yada yada tracker Brexit mistake). If Labour don't, someone else will.
Yes, I think so. And if Labour take that route it leads to electoral accommodations (at least) with the LDs. A great wrench, too, to admit we are no longer the party of the working class with a top priority of reducing economic and social inequality. Lots I don't really like,
But if it's true that Leave/Remain and "values" is the new fault-line (which I suspect it is), then I can't see that the other approach will work electorally. Clear left economically but socially conservative will shed more Remainer support than WWC Leavers reclaimed. It leaves the gate wide open for the LDs (or a new centre party) to become the main opposition to the Cons.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
Are we really arguing over 13,000 votes
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
That's a reasonable enough position to hold - about it being borderline full stop - enough, but HYUFD was going on about his dodgy data as if they were massively conclusive. So if the data show the opposite, it's correct to use his logic to draw the opposite conclusion.
If I was him, and held his position, then I’d be bringing non-voters into it to frame an “independence is a minority sport” argument.
Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one? The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.
She really doesn't want one, playing to the dummies that believed her and wasted 1 million list votes for 2 seats. Scotland really does deserve to be a colony of England. Too thick to be able to run itself right enough.
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
That's interesting observation. It does seem that the closer one gets to the mental fugue state that is tory party membership the greater the salience of 𝓞𝓤𝓡 𝓟𝓡𝓔𝓒𝓘𝓞𝓤𝓢 𝓤𝓝𝓘𝓞𝓝.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
All the best'
Hopefully he'll do even better, given that the opinion poll analysis generally comes up with the answer he first thought of! Residents expect more from their councillor than that....
Indeed, and I would like to repeat my congratulations on your own success and your story of your public service
I know we do not share the same political views, but I do admire those who give service to the community.
A friend of ours was one such person (and a lib dem) and we voted for her in every local council election
When I was newly bereaved, it was a lifesaver, and indeed it was the certainty of imminent bereavement that tipped me into going for it, on top of a full time job. After nearly thirty years continuous, thinking and working like a councillor has become second nature, and I would be bereaved without it. Although the step down from principal authority has been a welcome lightening of load.
Congratulations on your re-election - and to a few others I’ve seen mention the same in the last couple of days, from all parties.
Wow, that even works internationally. Impressive stuff from the Championship.
Over 3000 of us watching. That's a good turnout for the Championship.
On the Glos v Surrey game, they had a couple of ex-Surrey and Australia players watching (can't remember whom) and sending in sarky comments on the live feed. Which was quite fun!
It’s good to see quite a few of the minor sports eschew selling TV rights completely, when the TV provider is probably not going to show every match live, and put it online on their own platform instead.
I was watching the European F3 championship race earlier, which is actually a support race for F1 this weekend but not part of the TV agreement. They put that on Youtube too.
The increase in free live streaming on Youtube will probably save a number of minor sports that would otherwise be paywalled from extinction.
Cricket is a great example of how you can now watch some pretty good matches live - there's been some wonderful cricket in this year's Championship - and still the ECB can make squillions selling the rights to dodgy broadcasters Sky and BT.
The Hundred will probably ruin it (and ironically was designed to put cricket back on free to air) but we can enjoy it while it lasts.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
Are we really arguing over 13,000 votes
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
That's a reasonable enough position to hold - about it being borderline full stop - enough, but HYUFD was going on about his dodgy data as if they were massively conclusive. So if the data show the opposite, it's correct to use his logic to draw the opposite conclusion.
If I was him, and held his position, then I’d be bringing non-voters into it to frame an “independence is a minority sport” argument.
I'd say don't give him ideas, but he does that all the time with polling anyway.
Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one? The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.
She really doesn't want one, playing to the dummies that believed her and wasted 1 million list votes for 2 seats. Scotland really does deserve to be a colony of England. Too thick to be able to run itself right enough.
Wow.
Ignore the polls. Ignore the votes. Ignore the seats.
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
But I'm not sure.
The thing is, someone has to take the mantle of speaking to that alternative narrative- it's too big a group of people (yada yada tracker Brexit mistake). If Labour don't, someone else will.
Yes, I think so. And if Labour take that route it leads to electoral accommodations (at least) with the LDs. A great wrench, too, to admit we are no longer the party of the working class with a top priority of reducing economic and social inequality. Lots I don't really like,
But if it's true that Leave/Remain and "values" is the new fault-line (which I suspect it is), then I can't see that the other approach will work electorally. Clear left economically but socially conservative will shed more Remainer support than WWC Leavers reclaimed. It leaves the gate wide open for the LDs (or a new centre party) to become the main opposition to the Cons.
I think the problem with being ultra socially liberal but also economically left wing, is that a large chunk of the Remain coalition is ultra socially liberal but economically of the right. If the LibDems took that space, you basically just split the opposition.
I think the most realistic chance Labour has of making tangible progress in 2024 is the Joe Biden strategy, trying to make a few gains in the South and find future targets elsewhere and standing down elsewhere in seats like Guildford and Winchester and allowing the Lib Dems to fight those seats on their own.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
I was a member of Surrey for a number of years, but stopped when it became clear that they were not playing at the Oval in the school holidays, which was the only time of year I could reasonably get there to see them. Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
I was a member of Middlesex until last year when, but with no cricket due to Covid they offered no form of refund. Many other counties asked to keep members’ cash that year as a donation in exchange for some sort of future benefit. Middlesex just took it. I hope I am not alone and that they learn a lesson.
I let my MCCC membership lapse in 2020, before Covid hit, in protest at the impending OneHundred disaster and its dire consequences for the county championship. If genuine cricket followers don't vote with their feet the idiots at the ECB will just keep coming up with more and more stupid ideas. IMHO the current ECB should be banned for life from every patch of green grass in the country.
I think the most realistic chance Labour has of making tangible progress in 2024 is the Joe Biden strategy, trying to make a few gains in the South and find future targets elsewhere and standing down elsewhere in seats like Guildford and Winchester and allowing the Lib Dems to fight those seats on their own.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
There aren’t enough such seats, that’s your problem. Yield Leave voting seats and you yield a majority.
Another thought about the "where should Labour go?" question.
The argument against centrist-liberal-internationalist parties is they get squashed in the soggy centre. SDP, CUK, RIP.
But that position isn't centrist any more. Given where BoJo has taken the Conservatives, it's more the other pole of the axis.
It's making UK politics more American, which can't be good, but Trumpism didn't, in the end, play out to the Republican's advantage.
It’s too early to say Trumpism didn’t work out well for the GOP and a fair few arguments to say it is already a plus - it’s made inroads into the Hispanic vote, which is generally socially conservative, and the Rustbelt / Midwest WWC. A lot of the issues with Trump had to do with the messager.
There is plenty of space for an economically left, socially moderate party and / or a classical liberal free market one.
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
I was a member of Surrey for a number of years, but stopped when it became clear that they were not playing at the Oval in the school holidays, which was the only time of year I could reasonably get there to see them. Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
I was a member of Middlesex until last year when, but with no cricket due to Covid they offered no form of refund. Many other counties asked to keep members’ cash that year as a donation in exchange for some sort of future benefit. Middlesex just took it. I hope I am not alone and that they learn a lesson.
I let my MCCC membership lapse in 2020, before Covid hit, in protest at the impending OneHundred disaster and its dire consequences for the county championship. If genuine cricket followers don't vote with their feet the idiots at the ECB will just keep coming up with more and more stupid ideas. IMHO the current ECB should be banned for life from every patch of green grass in the country.
Agreed. Even selfishly, the 100 killed the one day cup. That meant I got far fewer truly competitive* days’ cricket than in previous years.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
I make it 50.13% on the list vote (SNP + SG + Alba).
50.4% No on the constituency vote (Conservatives+Labour+LD)
Which can be explained by the fact the Greens didn't stand everywhere and it's very likely you would vote Labour / Lib Dem constituency /Green list if you don't like the SNP candidate and there wasn't a Green candidate on the constituency vote
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
Come on, let's see your arithmetic to prove RP is wrong.
Come on.
Are we really arguing over 13,000 votes
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
Both the constituency and list votes came out too close to 50/50 for either side to claim victory. Taking 50/50 as the starting point for a referendum campaign, which hasn’t started yet, the vote being for a parliament, not independence, the interesting question is who is confident enough to swing the argument in their favour before Indyref2 to want to call a referendum in the expectation of winning? I don’t think either side are in that position, which is why neither side are pressing for one at the present time.
I think the most realistic chance Labour has of making tangible progress in 2024 is the Joe Biden strategy, trying to make a few gains in the South and find future targets elsewhere and standing down elsewhere in seats like Guildford and Winchester and allowing the Lib Dems to fight those seats on their own.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
There aren’t enough such seats, that’s your problem. Yield Leave voting seats and you yield a majority.
Correct - but Labour aren't going to get Leave-voting seats anytime soon in my view. So it's either reduce the Tory majority a bit or stand still
(Despite the "Chipping Norton set" monicker, that's not where Dave lives... he lives just outside, in a village with a LibDem councillor who's retained her seat.)
I think almost all counties are now providing a live stream of their matches. So if you have a particular team (Essex?) have a hunt round for them. Or check out their website, where most of them have the livestream embedded.
I was a member of Surrey for a number of years, but stopped when it became clear that they were not playing at the Oval in the school holidays, which was the only time of year I could reasonably get there to see them. Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
I was a member of Middlesex until last year when, but with no cricket due to Covid they offered no form of refund. Many other counties asked to keep members’ cash that year as a donation in exchange for some sort of future benefit. Middlesex just took it. I hope I am not alone and that they learn a lesson.
I let my MCCC membership lapse in 2020, before Covid hit, in protest at the impending OneHundred disaster and its dire consequences for the county championship. If genuine cricket followers don't vote with their feet the idiots at the ECB will just keep coming up with more and more stupid ideas. IMHO the current ECB should be banned for life from every patch of green grass in the country.
And they're still not as useless as the Department for Education.
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too.
I'm not sure how different that is from our local Ashfield Independents, tbh.
Former LibDems, minus opposition to Brexit.
Ate all the other parties in the local election last time.
Ashfield in 2019 General Election:
Tory Anderson: 19k votes. A I Zadrozny: 14.5k votes. Lab Fleet: 13k votes.
Sale of the TV division will definitely help as well. It's been such a huge distraction ever since it started and hasn't made any money for BT. Really BT should spin off the consumer division entirely (EE and B2C broadband/phone) and become Openreach the company.
Can someone please explain why Ben Houchen should not be the rightful King of the North, and not Andy Burnham?
Not only is he actually further north but his performance far outshines Burnham. He won 6pc more of the vote, and did it in a region which - unlike Greater Manchester - was not historically fertile ground. The fact it is now is in no small part to Houchen.
He also gets things done. Regardless of what you think of Freeports and nationalising the airports, he kickstarted a lot of the progress. Burnham just rode on the coat tails of what Manchester City Council had been doing for years before he came along.
No contest really
There is a difference in the roles. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has actual powers. The Mayor of the Tees Valley doesn't. Houchen has been re-elected after a magnificent social media campaign taking credit for the work of others.
That’s fair enough but I’m not sure Burnham has actually done much either. The GM councils traditionally worked together well because of their joint holdings in Manchester Airport and MCC a under Leese and Bernstein were excellent. I think Burnham is another one who has taken credit for others’ work.
I would be very sad to see the UK break up however you can’t sustain a Union without consent and the SNP with the Greens have a clear mandate for a second Indy ref . If people are going to argue against that then they should also argue against the legitimacy of the current UK government who have less of a mandate to govern.
I think the most realistic chance Labour has of making tangible progress in 2024 is the Joe Biden strategy, trying to make a few gains in the South and find future targets elsewhere and standing down elsewhere in seats like Guildford and Winchester and allowing the Lib Dems to fight those seats on their own.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
There aren’t enough such seats, that’s your problem. Yield Leave voting seats and you yield a majority.
Correct - but Labour aren't going to get Leave-voting seats anytime soon in my view. So it's either reduce the Tory majority a bit or stand still
There's Leave voting and Leave voting. The really heavy Leave seats- say the 60% or more seats aren't going away from Bluekip any time soon. There's probably some more pain for Labour to come there.
But the median Leave vote was 53%. And not all of them will have voted for this... I reckon there's a market there for the right message.
Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one? The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.
She really doesn't want one, playing to the dummies that believed her and wasted 1 million list votes for 2 seats. Scotland really does deserve to be a colony of England. Too thick to be able to run itself right enough.
Choose Union. Choose Boris. Choose the Union Jack. Choose a culture war. Choose a fucking big Brexit, Trident submarines, Challenger III tanks, Type 31 frigates and Tempest fighters. Choose a trade deal with Vietnam, Global Britain, and Grant Shapps' wig. Choose Matt Hancock's mate's PPE company. Choose Jacob Rees-Mogg's fucking weird kids. Choose tories. Choose Carrie and Dilyn. Choose a wallpaper in a range of fucking colours. Choose the pound and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning watching Sophy. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing PMQs, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up voters you focus grouped to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got Indyref2?
Sale of the TV division will definitely help as well. It's been such a huge distraction ever since it started and hasn't made any money for BT. Really BT should spin off the consumer division entirely (EE and B2C broadband/phone) and become Openreach the company.
Sale of the TV division will definitely help as well. It's been such a huge distraction ever since it started and hasn't made any money for BT. Really BT should spin off the consumer division entirely (EE and B2C broadband/phone) and become Openreach the company.
I have just switched from EE to BT for my mobile contract and, for sister companies, there was no love lost as each fought for my custom
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Good article, and I think a lot of the best bets come from recognising when the headline VI is just wrong. But we should briefly note the limitations of leader polling too: Check our Sarwar's numbers vs Douglas Ross' in Scotland but they didn't help Labour at all in the final results.
The problem with Sarwar's number was that they came from SNP voters and they liked Sturgeon more. Sarwar needed to be getting the positives from SCon voters to achieve the swing he needed.
He wasn't going to get them by attacking the SCons, was he?
Err yes, yes he was. Labour had lost votes to SCons so they needed to attack SCons and shown DRoss was shit to get them back.
Another thought about the "where should Labour go?" question.
The argument against centrist-liberal-internationalist parties is they get squashed in the soggy centre. SDP, CUK, RIP.
But that position isn't centrist any more. Given where BoJo has taken the Conservatives, it's more the other pole of the axis.
It's making UK politics more American, which can't be good, but Trumpism didn't, in the end, play out to the Republican's advantage.
Except:
Trump was miles behind in the polls throughout his presidency. Not the case here. Trump was seen to have handled the pandemic disastrously. Not the case here. The USA's demographics give an electoral advantage to the left/liberals. Not the case here.
Biden would have lost rather badly without all those factors in his favour.
It's simply delusional to think that Boris is presiding over some sort of extremist polity unacceptable to the mainstream of British society. On the contrary, the loss of Remainery Tories both in GE2019 and now in 2021 has been remarkably mild, especially when the replacement of Corbyn by the Starmer The Great Moderate Hope was supposed to make it safe for them to flood en masse to the 'sensible' alternative to Boris. Ooops!
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Are you saying Banbury's Cross?
Better get my white horse......
And your fine lady?
Isn't this more Dr Foster?
How's that middle, of yours?
Too bloody large, as usual!
And now we have Tory MPs jumping in on the Youtube live feed. Some people are totally shameless.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young (40s), articulate leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Yes and no.
I think you're right- the sensible place to start is where you are and reach out from there. For Labour, that's certainly the young, tapering off into older working people (parents with children but not grandchildren, say) but fading massively when you get to the retired. It's the "Vote Labour; we have work to do" thing I moodled on yesterday. There are some consequences for that, though.
The now-blue wall goes, because the point about places like Hartlepool is the demographic shift to them being places where the young leave and the old stay behind. (I'm assuming that people leave more because they can, rather than because they're forced to).
It means that Labour have to go on the basis that B***** is a problem to be solved not an opportunity to be grasped, because that's largely what young and working-age people think.
But for now, it probably means sticking with Starmer- until someone else who passes the "could you really imagine them on the steps of No 10" test comes along. But less conspicuous and isolated than now. Lots of bright younger people around him, with SKS as the father figure.
Not easy.
A massive dilemma.
The problem in replacing Starmer is all those ghoulish figures that would emerge from the shadows like Burgon and Long- Bailey. And heaven forbid one might win.
I have noticed @squareroot2 has been trolling @CorrectHorseBattery by stating Labour are finished and Horse might as well vote Green or LD (who?) clearly exciteable fanboi nonsense in the wake of Hartlepool, however should the ghost of Corbyn reappear again, Root's premonition could indeed come to pass.
Is it still £3 to join?
Didn't they make it about £24?
Turned out to be quite the money spinner for Corbyn...
I didn't troll CHB.. I suggested that there might be a realignment in politics and the Lib Dems and Greens might come to the fore as Labour tore itself apart.
I think the most realistic chance Labour has of making tangible progress in 2024 is the Joe Biden strategy, trying to make a few gains in the South and find future targets elsewhere and standing down elsewhere in seats like Guildford and Winchester and allowing the Lib Dems to fight those seats on their own.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
There aren’t enough such seats, that’s your problem. Yield Leave voting seats and you yield a majority.
Correct - but Labour aren't going to get Leave-voting seats anytime soon in my view. So it's either reduce the Tory majority a bit or stand still
There's Leave voting and Leave voting. The really heavy Leave seats- say the 60% or more seats aren't going away from Bluekip any time soon. There's probably some more pain for Labour to come there.
But the median Leave vote was 53%. And not all of them will have voted for this... I reckon there's a market there for the right message.
There's also Remain voting [ me] and Remain voting - like many others I voted Remain without much EU enthusiasm. Like manyh I accepted the result, have got my new Spanish residency and I moved on. Like many others I was appalled by the Vaccine fiasco and got my first jab last week aged 67! Not at all sure I'd vote to go back now...like many others.
Comments
However it would not matter if Yes had got 70% of votes cast, it would not mean the SNP could force a legally binding referendum as Westminster and Westminster alone decides the future of the Union and has done since the 1707 Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster.
As I posted below Opinium last week had only 28% of Scots wanting indyref2 within 2 years and only 14% in 2-5 years, almost all the SNP core vote anyway.
https://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485.
Latter day Neville Chamberlain SNP appeasers such as yourself can whinge and whinge but it makes no difference, you and the SNP have to realise that the Tories won a UK wide majority in 2019 and as long as they retain that majority at Westminster the Tories and the Tories alone will decide the future direction of the UK.
Blimey, that sounds like a pretty intolerant and narrow minded party to me.
Further to Labour, @CarlottaVance posted on PT this piece by Curtice -
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228
He describes the 2 competing visions for where the party goes post Brexit.
"The Dominant Narrative": Leave/Remain will fade as a political identity. Left/Right and Class will reassert itself. So get back to the knitting. Win back the WWC. Left. Big State. Patriotism.
"The Alternative Narrative": Leave/Remain is here to stay. So make the choice as the Cons have done. Be the party of Remainers and proud of it. Centrist. Liberal. Internationalist.
I find this interesting because it shows how big the challenge is. For example, I personally, as a Labour member and voter, can't easily decide which of the above I prefer. I like and dislike bits of both. And maybe Starmer feels the same because it's not totally clear to me right now where he's at.
Fwiw, forgetting everything apart from winning elections, and if SKS were to fall on his sword and the party were to replace him with me, I think I would go full fat with the Alternative Narrative. Bye bye working class, hello social liberals (any class welcome).
But I'm not sure.
I do hope Hampshire hold on for the draw here. Show the same guts Gloucestershire showed (which, with hindsight, seem to have spectacularly derailed their season).
Not just for the LOLs, but because it will give Glaws a huge cushion at the top of Group 2.
Albeit, if Hampshire lose it makes it that much harder for *them* to catch us...
Somerset is on this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ID7x7R74k
https://twitter.com/PeterKGeoghegan/status/1391340066660827137?s=20
IPSOS-MORI should be along with their personality ratings in the next month, so far Boris has won 64-30 (when Con VI lead was 5) and 67-25 (3) vs Sir Keir. I think the second lead of 42 is only bettered by Blair when facing Hague in Oct 97 (50-5) , with Thatcher vs Foot in April 83 (38) the next best
If there’s a referendum and “no” wins, then Scotland stays in the Union and presumably you are happy.
If there’s a referendum and “yes” wins then the Scots get what they want, and although sad yourself you can presumably be happy for them.
By denying a referendum you might be suppressing option A, which is fine. But you might also be suppressing option B. Does that sit comfortably with you? And if so, why? Why do you want anyone forced into the Union?
However I am not getting into this game with you beyond that as it does not matter what the Holyrood result was it makes no difference to the future of the Union, Westminster and Westminster alone and the UK government decides the future of the Union under our constitution. The UK Government is Tory with a Tory majority at Westminster and as long as that Tory majority remains at Westminster the Tories alone will decide the future of the Union and that is to respect the 2014 Scottish No vote and have no change to the Union
when I called it Sir Keir Bland and said he was dull as dishwater the Labour contingent went off on one.
Now they are agreeing hes not the man.
Bring back Jezza
Sadly the independence parties have a majority of votes and a majority of seats - an Boris needs to deal with that.
And ideally he will deal with it now and not let the SNP build up another 3+ years of resentment
And I see no reason to give either constituency or list votes primacy. Add them together and do the sums.
Is the problem that someone is averaging two [edit, sorry!] two PERCENTAGES, each calculated on a diffetent sample size, as if they were of equal weight?
Bit of a scare frankly as the first result to come through was a Con gain from Lab on a massive swing. That was however in the Brexity division of Banbury Ruscote... not clear that will be replicated across the county.
Somerset were the county I grew up watching though: we lived just over the Devon border and used to go and see the John Player matches on a Sunday with Ian Botham, Joel Garner, and Viv Richards in the days when England players still actually played for their counties unless there was actually a test on.
On the Glos v Surrey game, they had a couple of ex-Surrey and Australia players watching (can't remember whom) and sending in sarky comments on the live feed. Which was quite fun!
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391325024536219650
Understand Starmer wanted to move Rayner to shad cab brief. She kicked off, started making demands. He refused. She began last night’s briefing war. In which case, it was very badly handled media wise, but her and her team ambushed him, and it indicates he was right to move her.
I don't have a problem with your "we Tories" views about the relevance of it (though as the leader of the Scottish Tories has the opposite view we know that "we Tories" represents just you). It's that you are so desperately looking for a way out.
You said that the majority on Scotland support the union. We've just had an election. The majority voted for parties to end the union.
Man up and accept you are wrong on this one.
https://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485.
Boris will correctly tell Sturgeon a firm NO!!!
HYUFD seems to think there are two classes of MSP. Two classes of votes. Neither are true.
Come on.
Vince, Dawson, then the wicketkeeper, then Organ - weirdly batting at 9 - and then two bowlers...
Desperate and stupid.
This is excellent news.
I was watching the European F3 championship race earlier, which is actually a support race for F1 this weekend but not part of the TV agreement. They put that on Youtube too.
The average of the 2 for the nationalist parties combined was therefore only 49.55%
Which seems like a similar theme.
I was quite taken aback by it to be honest. Labour, to me, by definition should always be about whats best for the working class/low paid workers, that is the reason why I have never been able to comprehend their love for FOM, which as Maurice Glasman put it (I think), is "The biggest capitalist con trick invented by man"
...from about 20 mins in, very interesting analysis of the effects of global capitalism on the working class from a left wing perspective, which I pretty much 100% agree with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5vsa1FLKY
Edit - bugger, they've sent in McManus. That ruins that pun.
I mean it’s a nonsense when the numbers aren’t known, but can be argued as a way of making a bit of a guess.
I would suggest Scotland is split 50/50 on indyref2 and maybe both sides should admit that, rather than having an argument over statistically margin of error figure
It is clear that the SNP and Greens have mandate for indyref2 but listening to Sturgeon on Marr she does not seem to be in a hurry and, as she has a habit of doing, avoids the difficult questions not just on the process but the arguments over the economics of independence, pensions, and of course the border v RUK
I would have no problem with both sides agreeing a referendum, but if the polls continue to show 'No' leading than maybe Boris should consider that the best time to win is probably in the next 2 years, though that is getting close to GE 202
If you are going to go by all fruit then you have to count up all the fruit first then calculate the percentage.
But if it's true that Leave/Remain and "values" is the new fault-line (which I suspect it is), then I can't see that the other approach will work electorally. Clear left economically but socially conservative will shed more Remainer support than WWC Leavers reclaimed. It leaves the gate wide open for the LDs (or a new centre party) to become the main opposition to the Cons.
Cricket is a great example of how you can now watch some pretty good matches live - there's been some wonderful cricket in this year's Championship - and still the ECB can make squillions selling the rights to
dodgy broadcastersSky and BT.The Hundred will probably ruin it (and ironically was designed to put cricket back on free to air) but we can enjoy it while it lasts.
The argument against centrist-liberal-internationalist parties is they get squashed in the soggy centre. SDP, CUK, RIP.
But that position isn't centrist any more. Given where BoJo has taken the Conservatives, it's more the other pole of the axis.
It's making UK politics more American, which can't be good, but Trumpism didn't, in the end, play out to the Republican's advantage.
Ignore the polls. Ignore the votes. Ignore the seats.
If Malc is turning against Sindy, it's all over.
No easy answers.
That's probably the "easiest" way to do reduce the Tory majority. The Red Wall isn't coming back anytime soon.
There is plenty of space for an economically left, socially moderate party and / or a classical liberal free market one.
*A relative term when discussing Middlesex..
(Despite the "Chipping Norton set" monicker, that's not where Dave lives... he lives just outside, in a village with a LibDem councillor who's retained her seat.)
Former LibDems, minus opposition to Brexit.
Ate all the other parties in the local election last time.
Ashfield in 2019 General Election:
Tory Anderson: 19k votes.
A I Zadrozny: 14.5k votes.
Lab Fleet: 13k votes.
The really heavy Leave seats- say the 60% or more seats aren't going away from Bluekip any time soon. There's probably some more pain for Labour to come there.
But the median Leave vote was 53%. And not all of them will have voted for this... I reckon there's a market there for the right message.
How's that middle, of yours?
Trump was miles behind in the polls throughout his presidency. Not the case here.
Trump was seen to have handled the pandemic disastrously. Not the case here.
The USA's demographics give an electoral advantage to the left/liberals. Not the case here.
Biden would have lost rather badly without all those factors in his favour.
It's simply delusional to think that Boris is presiding over some sort of extremist polity unacceptable to the mainstream of British society. On the contrary, the loss of Remainery Tories both in GE2019 and now in 2021 has been remarkably mild, especially when the replacement of Corbyn by the Starmer The Great Moderate Hope was supposed to make it safe for them to flood en masse to the 'sensible' alternative to Boris. Ooops!
And now we have Tory MPs jumping in on the Youtube live feed. Some people are totally shameless.