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?
That is just media gossip; if you repeat those rumours you'll be hearing from my lawyers, Messers Smith and Wesson....
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
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
Which is ironic given that you well end up in the same call centre were you to have problems.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
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?
That is just media gossip; if you repeat those rumours you'll be hearing from my lawyers, Messers Smith and Wesson....
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 1h Everyone wants to learn from 1997, no-one actually wants to learn from 1994-7. The amount of wooing, coaxing and communicating with John Prescott that Blair does in Campbell's diaries is off the charts.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Many thanks for repeating the sums from the other point of view - much appreciated.
I'm still waiting for HYUFD to tell us exactly how RP and now you are wrong.
What's got into your boys? No wins for three years then two on the spin. Top of Group 1, forsooth, albeit with many fewer points than Gloucestershire, Somerset, Lancashire and Yorkshire.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Can I just point out that unless Lancashire by some miracle pull out a win, Glos will have the most points of any team in the Championship one-third of the way through the season.
I see the Tories have taken Amber Valley from Labour (mid-south Derbys, old mining area) grabbing 9 of the 12 Labour seats including the council leader. The places they have hung on to I would have expected to fall too.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Don’t worry, I think No will win comfortably.
I think it will too but the idea of going through all that disruptive and economically disastrous nonsense once again just fills me with gloom.
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
Theoretically FOM could be a wonderful thing.. is a wonderful thing. But there should have been tests that the countries involved had to pass in order to have access to it, otherwise you end up with what he had, and what led to the referendum, then the leave vote - unreciprocated free movement.
It doesn't work if no one from England wants to go to live Eastern Europe, but everyone under 30 in Eastern Europe wants to come and work here. What you end up with is a conveyer belt of cheap labour which suits the rich in the rich country and causes tension between the working classes and the immigrants. Because it sounds utopian on paper, middle class leftists wilfuly refuse to consider there could be any problem with it.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 1h Everyone wants to learn from 1997, no-one actually wants to learn from 1994-7. The amount of wooing, coaxing and communicating with John Prescott that Blair does in Campbell's diaries is off the charts.
This always harking back to 97 seems a big mistake to me. The world has moved on, that was nearly 25 years ago. I don't think that approach cuts it anymore, everybody is wise to the moves he was pulling. There was no social media, the newspapers were key, no YouTube, twitter, etc.
Mandelson seems to be declaring war on the left. This will probably end in breakup, which will only work in the long-term if the right coalition agreements are in place.
If it ends in pure acrimony, it will be a disaster for both the left and centre-left.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
You can argue it both ways. I am content that by a tiny fraction the Scots voted for more pro-indy parties. I accept the arithmetic.
Yet we were also told that the SNP getting an outright majority was the clincher. They did not. They came very close - like the votes - but they failed.
The Greens' major issue is the environment, they are not like the SNP.
It's like saying the Tories of the noughties were the same as UKIP, and votes for both should be added together. You can't do that, yes they were both eurosceptic and most in both parties wanted a referendum, but for UKIP an EU vote was THE overriding issue.
Anyway we are where we are. Neither side wants a vote yet, so it won't happen for quite a while whatever. My guess is that the Tories will justifiably long grass it (we are recovering from Covid!) past the 2023-4 election, so as to hand the mess over to someone else, while also hoping that the SNP make a big mistake in their frustration, and the appeal of YES diminishes interim. Boris won't say a flat No, as that will inflame opinion.
It's a policy, but it worries me that this is their only policy
We have a few precious years to save the UK. A referendum is coming, probably in the 2nd half of the decade. During that time the government should set up a grand convention, as I've said, to examine all the options. From Federalism to Devomax to Indy and the other way, too. Let the indy side explicitly state their plans on currency, bank, the EU, debt, let the NO side come up with an attractive model for the future UK.
Then, fully apprised, let the nation decide and let the Scots vote.
Does the government have the wit and courage to do something like this? I doubt it. They are just gonna kick the ball away and pray
I see the Tories have taken Amber Valley from Labour (mid-south Derbys, old mining area) grabbing 9 of the 12 Labour seats including the council leader. The places they have hung on to I would have expected to fall too.
The curious thing about Derbyshire is how the High Peak area is trending towards Labour.
Mandelson seems to be declaring war on the left. This was probably end in breakup, which will only work in the long-term if the right coalition agreements are in place.
I have done similar analysis, with similar results, in local elections, though I haven't published it.
I think I agree. A PM with good gross ratings mid term is better than good party VI ratings, because, when it comes to Election campaigns, they are all over the media selling their ideas, and the party VI ticks up as a result.
An opposition leader with bad gross ratings mid term is given false confidence by a VI lead, which is just annoyance at the government really. When it comes to selling his ideas at the GE campaign, people arent interested and the VI ticks down.
Swing back people used to call it I think. I think thats what will happen if it is Boris vs Sir Keir at the next GE
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I don't see it as quite that clear cut. The vast majority of voters cast their vote knowing full well that there will not be a referendum (at least not a correctly sanctioned one that may result in independence) in this parliament. The PM has been clear on that, and Sturgeon said repeatedly during the campaign that she would not support anything but a legal referendum.
So it's likely a good number of those voters took this as a signal they could vote for the SNP, Greens, etc, because they like the party even if they don't particularly want a referendum (which would tally with the recent polls showing not huge enthusiasm for a referendum any time in the near future).
The only way to know for sure if Scottish voters really do want a referendum... is to have a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Which is marvellously recursive, if highly unlikely to happen.
Mandelson seems to be declaring war on the left. This was probably end in breakup, which will only work in the long-term if the right coalition agreements are in place.
We've been here before without a break up.
If he tries to remove unions, as speculated today, it will ; not least because the membership is also still well to the left of what it was in Mandelson's heyday. He still seems to be in some sort of mental landscape of 1997.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I don't see it as quite that clear cut. The vast majority of voters cast their vote knowing full well that there will not be a referendum (at least not a correctly sanctioned one that may result in independence) in this parliament. The PM has been clear on that, and Sturgeon said repeatedly during the campaign that she would not support anything but a legal referendum.
So it's likely a good number of those voters took this as a signal they could vote for the SNP, Greens, etc, because they like the party even if they don't particularly want a referendum (which would tally with the recent polls showing not huge enthusiasm for a referendum any time in the near future).
The only way to know for sure if Scottish voters really do want a referendum... is to have a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Which is marvellously recursive, if highly unlikely to happen.
On the other hand, the SNP and SGs did have a referendum in the current PMT in their manifestoes.
Mandelson seems to be declaring war on the left. This was probably end in breakup, which will only work in the long-term if the right coalition agreements are in place.
We've been here before without a break up.
Stuck together but all broken up,. Like a box of broken biscuits. Looks alright on the outside until you look inside.
I see the Tories have taken Amber Valley from Labour (mid-south Derbys, old mining area) grabbing 9 of the 12 Labour seats including the council leader. The places they have hung on to I would have expected to fall too.
The curious thing about Derbyshire is how the High Peak area is trending towards Labour.
Seems the plot thickens over the Rayner 'sacking'.
Enlighten us
On the Rayner angle, is there any mileage on the habitual hoof-in-mouth theory, as seemed to be illustrated by the shouting down of Brillo in that viral video?
Plus this time the 'Tory Hartlepool Candidate links to Tax Haven' stuff.
Which turned into demands that the Tory publish her tax return anyway, via guilt-by-association with partner. Or ex-partner. If I have it right. Which I might not, as I am not spending my Sunday afternoon probing the Rayner-Starmer shipwreck and deeper.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Don’t worry, I think No will win comfortably.
I think it will too but the idea of going through all that disruptive and economically disastrous nonsense once again just fills me with gloom.
I think it was a mistake to allow Salmond so much control over it last time.
I think the government should announce that it will be held next May/June.
But I think the question and franchise should be the same as last time.
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
Apart from it is easy to say legislate and regulate. Not so easy however to come up with anything that addresses the issues of unlimited immigration causing for example a race to the bottom on wages.
Let me guess you are going to say higher minimum wage - all you do then he attract even more of a flow from countries with low minimum wage to those with higher as we saw in eastern european migration
Ah you will say then we set a global minimum wage - well apart from the obvious absurdity of getting the whole world to agree then all you do is change the flow from countries with high costs of living to those with low.
The other problem of course with high minimum wages is the more jobs you drag into the minimum wage net the less value people see in doing those jobs. If I could get the same being a barista as I get for my current job for example I would quit in an instant.
As I said easy to wave your hand airily and say legislate/ regulate not so easy to actually come up with anything to solve the issues
How solid would the new found educated middle-class support for Labour be if the party went to the next election on a radical economic platform that would hammer their living standards? Both main parties are on thin ice with a great deal of their current support. A lot of the underlying trends point to big a big realignment in terms of political parties BUT FPTP.. Labour most likely to be replaced but I wouldn't bet on it.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
You can argue it both ways. I am content that by a tiny fraction the Scots voted for more pro-indy parties. I accept the arithmetic.
Yet we were also told that the SNP getting an outright majority was the clincher. They did not. They came very close - like the votes - but they failed.
The Greens' major issue is the environment, they are not like the SNP.
It's like saying the Tories of the noughties were the same as UKIP, and votes for both should be added together. You can't do that, yes they were both eurosceptic and most in both parties wanted a referendum, but for UKIP an EU vote was THE overriding issue.
Anyway we are where we are. Neither side wants a vote yet, so it won't happen for quite a while whatever. My guess is that the Tories will justifiably long grass it (we are recovering from Covid!) past the 2023-4 election, so as to hand the mess over to someone else, while also hoping that the SNP make a big mistake in their frustration, and the appeal of YES diminishes interim. Boris won't say a flat No, as that will inflame opinion.
It's a policy, but it worries me that this is their only policy
We have a few precious years to save the UK. A referendum is coming, probably in the 2nd half of the decade. During that time the government should set up a grand convention, as I've said, to examine all the options. From Federalism to Devomax to Indy and the other way, too. Let the indy side explicitly state their plans on currency, bank, the EU, debt, let the NO side come up with an attractive model for the future UK.
Then, fully apprised, let the nation decide and let the Scots vote.
Does the government have the wit and courage to do something like this? I doubt it. They are just gonna kick the ball away and pray
I also think that the SNP vote has been boosted by the Nicola, mother of the nation, nonsense that has come out of Covid, as has the standing of Boris and Drakeford. It was a weird campaign and a weird election and the polling shows fairly comfortable majorities against Independence at the moment (although they showed the opposite for quite a lot of last year).
As a Unionist I can only hope that as politics returns to its normal tedium, as the disasters continue to clock up on the SNP watch in education, those Gupta guarantees, the restrictions on University admission for Scots because of the "free" nonsense and its implications for our University budgets, that the dial continues to turn against Sturgeon. But the power, money and influence of the Scottish government will once again be in the leave camp and once again they will give no quarter and blush at no lies. The UK government must this time stand up for itself and make the case for the Union.
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!
The party of Leave, antiwokery, Eng Nat?
Or that of small state, sound money, free enterprise?
These things are impossible to fuse together for long, "Boris" or no "Boris".
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Kudos for your honesty.
I think you can put Independent Green Voice on the Union side of the balance sheet, they're run by the bloke below. It looks like they may have denied the Greens one or two list MSP so they've probably been more effective than all the other smaller parties put together.
How solid would the new found educated middle-class support for Labour be if the party went to the next election on a radical economic platform that would hammer their living standards? Both main parties are on thin ice with a great deal of their current support. A lot of the underlying trends point to big a big realignment in terms of political parties BUT FPTP.. Labour most likely to be replaced but I wouldn't bet on it.
Labour is now finding it as difficult to ride two horses headed in different directions as the LibDems did once confronted with power in 2010. Labour's internal stresses are massive.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I don't see it as quite that clear cut. The vast majority of voters cast their vote knowing full well that there will not be a referendum (at least not a correctly sanctioned one that may result in independence) in this parliament. The PM has been clear on that, and Sturgeon said repeatedly during the campaign that she would not support anything but a legal referendum.
So it's likely a good number of those voters took this as a signal they could vote for the SNP, Greens, etc, because they like the party even if they don't particularly want a referendum (which would tally with the recent polls showing not huge enthusiasm for a referendum any time in the near future).
The only way to know for sure if Scottish voters really do want a referendum... is to have a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Which is marvellously recursive, if highly unlikely to happen.
I cannot deny that a lot of people have been f****** stupid about this but if you are daft enough to vote for a party that is committed to a referendum in this Parliament it really shouldn't come as a surprise to you if they then seek to implement that policy.
How solid would the new found educated middle-class support for Labour be if the party went to the next election on a radical economic platform that would hammer their living standards? Both main parties are on thin ice with a great deal of their current support. A lot of the underlying trends point to big a big realignment in terms of political parties BUT FPTP.. Labour most likely to be replaced but I wouldn't bet on it.
Labour is now finding it as difficult to ride two horses headed in different directions as the LibDems did once confronted with power in 2010. Labour's internal stresses are massive.
Whatever the outcome, Labour infighting is going to be the Summer extravaganza. A fight for the soul of the Party.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Kudos for your honesty.
I think you can put Independent Green Voice on the Union side of the balance sheet, they're run by the bloke below. It looks like they may have denied the Greens one or two list MSP so they've probably been more effective than all the other smaller parties put together.
Are you absolutely sure that’s not a still from Little Britain?
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Kudos for your honesty.
I think you can put Independent Green Voice on the Union side of the balance sheet, they're run by the bloke below. It looks like they may have denied the Greens one or two list MSP so they've probably been more effective than all the other smaller parties put together.
On the other hand, as you have often pointed out many Labour voters would probably be in favour of a second referendum, and would have voted for the SNP had they thought they were able to deliver one.
That’s an aside. The fact remains that however you look at it it’s impossible to argue against a vote in favour of a second referendum on these numbers. Exactly what Johnson will do next is interesting. Does he shaft his voters, shaft the Scots or shaft everyone?
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
The problem is that you are asking the current residents to the country to find that.
Let’s assume that all incomers are entitled to the full benefits of healthcare, welfare etc from the day they arrive. You can, of course, say that they receive no recourse to public funds but personally I believe that is unethical and damaging to society as a whole.
So if you have completely free movement and arrivals benefit then you are creating a magnet: the welfare benefits that many in this country regard as too low are way above the standard of living for the vast majority in Africa, for example. Hence you will have massive immigration flows but be asking those who can afford it - the current residents - to fund that out of tax as well as accepting a reduction in their access to services (crowding in houses, healthcare, public transport etc)
How solid would the new found educated middle-class support for Labour be if the party went to the next election on a radical economic platform that would hammer their living standards? Both main parties are on thin ice with a great deal of their current support. A lot of the underlying trends point to big a big realignment in terms of political parties BUT FPTP.. Labour most likely to be replaced but I wouldn't bet on it.
Labour is now finding it as difficult to ride two horses headed in different directions as the LibDems did once confronted with power in 2010. Labour's internal stresses are massive.
Whatever the outcome, Labour infighting is going to be the Summer extravaganza. A fight for the soul of the Party.
Popcorn time as they do to each other what they did to the country...
Seems the plot thickens over the Rayner 'sacking'.
Enlighten us
Rumours around that her and the left of the party have manufactured the whole argument to get rid of Starmer - but who really knows
I am not sure Rayner would be an improvement, bluntly. She has an ‘interesting backstory,’ of course, but when she was shadowing education she always struck me as very tunnel visioned. Able to come up with excellent proposals in very specific areas (lifelong learning) beyond clueless and totally disengaged elsewhere (secondary education).
Well, that isn’t what you want in a leader who needs to go big on policy.
Chipping Norton set just elected a Lab councillor, Con loss.
Tax the fuckers til the pips squeak. They do know that is the reality, not some political equivalent of eating quinoa?
Presumably they’ve all been living there in lockdown but will head back to London when it lifts and leave the locals with a local councillor they are not a fan of?
LibDems gain Faringdon (one-R Oxfordshire, not two-Rs London).
Looking increasingly like the Tories have lost Oxfordshire.
The Conservatives lost control of Oxfordshire back in 2013.
Oxfordshire has in recent decades been a very fractious place. The slight surprise is it is Labour winning, not the LibDems.
It does make you wonder how safe the south of Oxfordshire is for the Tories. Oxfordshire slipping towards a Lab-LD coalition. VoWH and SOxon are LD and LD-Grn administrations respectively, both voted remain by a margin of ~10%. I also suspect that Thames Valley PCC may go Labour.
Oxfordshire will gain an MP at the next election, likely meaning that LD-friendly South Witney, VoWH, and South Oxfordshire will end up with 4 MPs (1LD, 2 Con, 1 new), all of which will be within reach for an organised LD campaign.
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!
The party of Leave, antiwokery, Eng Nat?
Or that of small state, sound money, free enterprise?
These things are impossible to fuse together for long, "Boris" or no "Boris".
How solid would the new found educated middle-class support for Labour be if the party went to the next election on a radical economic platform that would hammer their living standards? Both main parties are on thin ice with a great deal of their current support. A lot of the underlying trends point to big a big realignment in terms of political parties BUT FPTP.. Labour most likely to be replaced but I wouldn't bet on it.
Labour is now finding it as difficult to ride two horses headed in different directions as the LibDems did once confronted with power in 2010. Labour's internal stresses are massive.
Whatever the outcome, Labour infighting is going to be the Summer extravaganza. A fight for the soul of the Party.
Seems the plot thickens over the Rayner 'sacking'.
Enlighten us
Rumours around that her and the left of the party have manufactured the whole argument to get rid of Starmer - but who really knows
I am not sure Rayner would be an improvement, bluntly. She has an ‘interesting backstory,’ of course, but when she was shadowing education she always struck me as very tunnel visioned. Able to come up with excellent proposals in very specific areas (lifelong learning) beyond clueless and totally disengaged elsewhere (secondary education).
Well, that isn’t what you want in a leader who needs to go big on policy.
Labour seems to think it is entitled to a Klopp. They will keep going through leaders before they realise what they need is a Big Sam Allardyce - someone to knock heads together and get them out the relegation zone. Meanwhile, they are reduced to scouring the lower divisions for someone who can hoof the ball 70 yards upfield to a space where a striker should be. No-one with talent wants to touch them.
Meanwhile, the Tories have a manager who has won the domestic trophies. And Europe.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
I disagree with the final sentence. I know that lots of voters deliberately voted for the same candidate for their first and second preference as a way of emphasising their support for that candidate because they were boasting about it in lots of places on election day.
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
Theoretically FOM could be a wonderful thing.. is a wonderful thing. But there should have been tests that the countries involved had to pass in order to have access to it, otherwise you end up with what he had, and what led to the referendum, then the leave vote - unreciprocated free movement.
It doesn't work if no one from England wants to go to live Eastern Europe, but everyone under 30 in Eastern Europe wants to come and work here. What you end up with is a conveyer belt of cheap labour which suits the rich in the rich country and causes tension between the working classes and the immigrants. Because it sounds utopian on paper, middle class leftists wilfuly refuse to consider there could be any problem with it.
I think the adverse impact of FM on the wages of the low paid was overstated relative to other factors. And I absolutely hate how politicians of the populist right who don't care two figs about raising the living standards of the poor weaponized the issue, framing it as a 'zero sum' contest between people who were born here and people who weren't. But I accept there was an impact - logic says so - and I agree we should have taken steps to mitigate it.
Where you and 100% concur is in our recognition that this was THE issue which forced the Referendum (via voting for Farage pressure) and then won it for Leave. It's why Brexit happened. I think the both of us get somewhat surprised - and a touch irritated even - when hearing the concerted attempts from some of your fellow Leavers on here to rewrite history and pretend it was all about something else.
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!
The party of Leave, antiwokery, Eng Nat?
Or that of small state, sound money, free enterprise?
These things are impossible to fuse together for long, "Boris" or no "Boris".
How long is 'for long'? Want to stake your superforecaster rep on it? I'm hardly representative - though I've been a better guide to the national mood for the last few years than most - but as a Thatcherite metropolitan elitist I've had no problem with the party's recent turn, and have been really quite delighted with the results...
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I was out campaigning for No, so the laughable suggestions that I am an SNP fanboi are pretty desperate. One good skill I have is the ability to add. @Big_G_NorthWales asked if we were arguing over 13k votes.
No, we are not. The result is clear and unambiguous. If delusional wazzocks want to try and argue the result isn't the result then that's pretty embarrassing for them. We - the forces of No - lost.
The highest every turnout in both % of the electorate AND actual number of votes cast The highest number of votes ever for the SNP The highest number of MSPs elected on a manifesto pledge for independence
What else is there to argue? The most number of people ever voted for the biggest majority ever for Yes. It is done. We need to move onto making the argument for how the United Kingdom of the next few centuries can remain united, not make petulant idiotic arguments there is no mandate.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Don't worry too much, Scotland is a nation of bottlers. You will once again vote for the apron strings. It's a nation that likes to talk but won't vote to lose all of the UK funded sweeties like free prescriptions and free university tuition.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Don’t worry, I think No will win comfortably.
How people will choose to vote in a referendum is not currently the question. Apparently we have to question whether the unambiguous result is actually real because apparently if you discard some votes and round percentages you can create a false number that shows No winning.
I think the adverse impact of FM on the wages of the low paid was overstated relative to other factors. And I absolutely hate how politicians of the populist right who don't care two figs about raising the living standards of the poor weaponized the issue, framing it as a 'zero sum' contest between people who were born here and people who weren't. But I accept there was an impact - logic says so - and I agree we should have taken steps to mitigate it. .
As an aside, Cobbett used to excoriate Wiberforce for prioritising the abolition of slavery vs lifting living standards for UK working men and women
50 dead in Kabul - and it doesn’t even make the headlines.
The Taliban have won, haven’t they?
Yup. Best not to dwell on the young men and women we lost fighting over there.
The first day of the war, November 2001, I was asked by my flat mate (we’d just started uni together) why I was so upset and angry at the invasion.
I replied, ‘Because nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but thousands of lives have been lost trying.’
If I could see that as an 18-year-old, how come Bush, Blair, Howard, Musharraf and Putin couldn’t? Especially Putin!
Wasn’t the problem what happened a few years later? Bombing the shit out of some caves and tracking down Bin Laden was one thing, but the moral crusade that followed was the utterly stupid.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That is a terrible design. Come to think of it, I can't remember if I voted the right way myself.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I was out campaigning for No, so the laughable suggestions that I am an SNP fanboi are pretty desperate. One good skill I have is the ability to add. @Big_G_NorthWales asked if we were arguing over 13k votes.
No, we are not. The result is clear and unambiguous. If delusional wazzocks want to try and argue the result isn't the result then that's pretty embarrassing for them. We - the forces of No - lost.
The highest every turnout in both % of the electorate AND actual number of votes cast The highest number of votes ever for the SNP The highest number of MSPs elected on a manifesto pledge for independence
What else is there to argue? The most number of people ever voted for the biggest majority ever for Yes. It is done. We need to move onto making the argument for how the United Kingdom of the next few centuries can remain united, not make petulant idiotic arguments there is no mandate.
I agree. We are a part of one of the best and most democratic countries in the world built on mutual respect and tolerance. Denying the people their choice is not a part of that. I felt that very strongly when those morons were trying so hard to sabotage Brexit in the remainer Parliament. They paid the price and rightly so. Unionists must not let the likes of @HYUFD or Boris do the same for them.
Unionists can, should and will win this argument again if they are not sabotaged.
50 dead in Kabul - and it doesn’t even make the headlines.
The Taliban have won, haven’t they?
Yup. Best not to dwell on the young men and women we lost fighting over there.
The first day of the war, November 2001, I was asked by my flat mate (we’d just started uni together) why I was so upset and angry at the invasion.
I replied, ‘Because nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but thousands of lives have been lost trying.’
If I could see that as an 18-year-old, how come Bush, Blair, Howard, Musharraf and Putin couldn’t? Especially Putin!
Wasn’t the problem what happened a few years later? Bombing the shit out of some caves and tracking down Bin Laden was one thing, but the moral crusade that followed was the utterly stupid.
It's staggering to think that an ideology that's just blown up 50 KIDS has any support, anywhere. Disgusting doesn't remotely come close to describing it
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.
Hold on. Biden is from the US equivalent of the Red Wall - the boy form Scranton. As blue collar as they get. He won back the red wall states. That was his path to victory. Everything else was gravy.
So yes, do it the Biden way, but not how you describe.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That is a terrible design. Come to think of it, I can't remember if I voted the right way myself.
We had the same sort of issue in the Surrey PCC election. IIRC 880000 voters voted for two different people in column A, rather than one in A and one in B.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I was out campaigning for No, so the laughable suggestions that I am an SNP fanboi are pretty desperate. One good skill I have is the ability to add. @Big_G_NorthWales asked if we were arguing over 13k votes.
No, we are not. The result is clear and unambiguous. If delusional wazzocks want to try and argue the result isn't the result then that's pretty embarrassing for them. We - the forces of No - lost.
The highest every turnout in both % of the electorate AND actual number of votes cast The highest number of votes ever for the SNP The highest number of MSPs elected on a manifesto pledge for independence
What else is there to argue? The most number of people ever voted for the biggest majority ever for Yes. It is done. We need to move onto making the argument for how the United Kingdom of the next few centuries can remain united, not make petulant idiotic arguments there is no mandate.
I agree. We are a part of one of the best and most democratic countries in the world built on mutual respect and tolerance. Denying the people their choice is not a part of that. I felt that very strongly when those morons were trying so hard to sabotage Brexit in the remainer Parliament. They paid the price and rightly so. Unionists must not let the likes of @HYUFD or Boris do the same for them.
Unionists can, should and will win this argument again if they are not sabotaged.
That's the stupidest part of saying no to a second referendum. No/Remain will win anyway and that settles the question forever IMO. Two of the same result in close succession will take independence off the table for good.
It's staggering to think that an ideology that's just blown up 50 KIDS has any support, anywhere. Disgusting doesn't remotely come close to describing it
When Samuel Huntington wrote about the clash of civilisations, I don’t think he realised that it would turn out to be 15th Century v 20th (let alone 21st) Century.
Instead, we'll end up with a hand-wringing ultra-remainer social worker with a colourful social media history. And after we get drubbed 'lessons will be learnt'.
I agree with @RochdalePioneers arithmetic. To complicate matters a little further Alba got 44,913 on the list, All for Uniity got 23,299 Reform UK 5793 and UKIP 4,547. The other parties I can identify are "neutral" on the question and there are sundry independents I cannot identify but it seems likely that the small balance of 13k would increase marginally if the odds and sods are taken into account.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
I was out campaigning for No, so the laughable suggestions that I am an SNP fanboi are pretty desperate. One good skill I have is the ability to add. @Big_G_NorthWales asked if we were arguing over 13k votes.
No, we are not. The result is clear and unambiguous. If delusional wazzocks want to try and argue the result isn't the result then that's pretty embarrassing for them. We - the forces of No - lost.
The highest every turnout in both % of the electorate AND actual number of votes cast The highest number of votes ever for the SNP The highest number of MSPs elected on a manifesto pledge for independence
What else is there to argue? The most number of people ever voted for the biggest majority ever for Yes. It is done. We need to move onto making the argument for how the United Kingdom of the next few centuries can remain united, not make petulant idiotic arguments there is no mandate.
I agree. We are a part of one of the best and most democratic countries in the world built on mutual respect and tolerance. Denying the people their choice is not a part of that. I felt that very strongly when those morons were trying so hard to sabotage Brexit in the remainer Parliament. They paid the price and rightly so. Unionists must not let the likes of @HYUFD or Boris do the same for them.
Unionists can, should and will win this argument again if they are not sabotaged.
Brexit was not sabotaged by Remainers, as has been covered exhaustively and around 468,000 times since 2016 on this forum. The governing party, part of which initiated Brexit, failed to agree internally on what form Brexit would even take, resulting in four years of incoherence and wrangling.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That is a terrible design. Come to think of it, I can't remember if I voted the right way myself.
We had the same sort of issue in the Surrey PCC election. IIRC 880000 voters voted for two different people in column A, rather than one in A and one in B.
Watching Canterbury, Surrey and Chipping Norton go Red whilst Hartlepool and the Midlands go blue, is it time for those who argued the Leave vote wasn't a working class thing to admit they were wrong/have a rethink?
I see the Tories have taken Amber Valley from Labour (mid-south Derbys, old mining area) grabbing 9 of the 12 Labour seats including the council leader. The places they have hung on to I would have expected to fall too.
Amber Valley was as much Engineering as Mining, interestingly. Like many things the peak was the 1950s.
Significantly various parts of the Butterley company survived into the 20C for speciality steel.
Recent big stuff included work for Sizewell B and the Falkirk Wheel.
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
Tricky one, isn't it. However I manage to be Left and also a Globalist. Here's how. Free movement and globalization increases global GDP and reduces inequality between countries. Both good. But if unfettered it increases inequality within countries and this is bad. Therefore in mitigation the UK government should legislate domestically in favour of labour and against capital. Which I support. That's how I square the circle.
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
Theoretically FOM could be a wonderful thing.. is a wonderful thing. But there should have been tests that the countries involved had to pass in order to have access to it, otherwise you end up with what he had, and what led to the referendum, then the leave vote - unreciprocated free movement.
It doesn't work if no one from England wants to go to live Eastern Europe, but everyone under 30 in Eastern Europe wants to come and work here. What you end up with is a conveyer belt of cheap labour which suits the rich in the rich country and causes tension between the working classes and the immigrants. Because it sounds utopian on paper, middle class leftists wilfuly refuse to consider there could be any problem with it.
I think the adverse impact of FM on the wages of the low paid was overstated relative to other factors. And I absolutely hate how politicians of the populist right who don't care two figs about raising the living standards of the poor weaponized the issue, framing it as a 'zero sum' contest between people who were born here and people who weren't. But I accept there was an impact - logic says so - and I agree we should have taken steps to mitigate it.
Where you and 100% concur is in our recognition that this was THE issue which forced the Referendum (via voting for Farage pressure) and then won it for Leave. It's why Brexit happened. I think the both of us get somewhat surprised - and a touch irritated even - when hearing the concerted attempts from some of your fellow Leavers on here to rewrite history and pretend it was all about something else.
Yes. I campaigned for UKIP in 2014 and 2015, and immigration was pretty much all the voters wanted us to do something about. FOM was really the only thing the EU did that people noticed changing in their lives. Not to say there weren't other things the EU did that benefitted the UK, but I dont think people really distinguished between them being done because we were in the EU as they did with immigration.
50 dead in Kabul - and it doesn’t even make the headlines.
The Taliban have won, haven’t they?
Yup. Best not to dwell on the young men and women we lost fighting over there.
The first day of the war, November 2001, I was asked by my flat mate (we’d just started uni together) why I was so upset and angry at the invasion.
I replied, ‘Because nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but thousands of lives have been lost trying.’
If I could see that as an 18-year-old, how come Bush, Blair, Howard, Musharraf and Putin couldn’t? Especially Putin!
Wasn’t the problem what happened a few years later? Bombing the shit out of some caves and tracking down Bin Laden was one thing, but the moral crusade that followed was the utterly stupid.
That’s exactly right. If we’d stuck to the task of kicking out Osama and co it would have been achievable. The rest was overreach and cost lives unnecessarily.
Comments
And colours to the mast, I see 'free movement' as a great great thing. That people can move painlessly across national borders to live and work as they wish - for me that's a wonderful aspiration to always be progressing towards, Europe and elsewhere. Of course there are problems with it - eg unbalanced flows, wage distortions, housing, culture clashes, etc - but like I say that's where governments come in. Stop pandering and scapegoating. Address those issues.
What's the point otherwise? Just hunker down and park the bus? No. Not for me. Let's elevate. The beautiful game.
I repeatedly said that this was going to be close and it is but Scotland has voted very narrowly for a second referendum. I am gutted.
Stephen Bush
@stephenkb
·
1h
Everyone wants to learn from 1997, no-one actually wants to learn from 1994-7. The amount of wooing, coaxing and communicating with John Prescott that Blair does in Campbell's diaries is off the charts.
I'm still waiting for HYUFD to tell us exactly how RP and now you are wrong.
Could be worse.
You might be supporting Sussex.
Or Essex.
To Notts fans:
What's got into your boys? No wins for three years then two on the spin. Top of Group 1, forsooth, albeit with many fewer points than Gloucestershire, Somerset, Lancashire and Yorkshire.
LibDems gain Faringdon (one-R Oxfordshire, not two-Rs London).
Looking increasingly like the Tories have lost Oxfordshire.
It won't last, but I'm loving it while it does!
#rubbingitin
It doesn't work if no one from England wants to go to live Eastern Europe, but everyone under 30 in Eastern Europe wants to come and work here. What you end up with is a conveyer belt of cheap labour which suits the rich in the rich country and causes tension between the working classes and the immigrants. Because it sounds utopian on paper, middle class leftists wilfuly refuse to consider there could be any problem with it.
That's not true in general elections, as this thread I wrote a few month ago demonstrates statistically.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/18/leader-and-government-approval-ratings-and-voting-intention-as-a-guide-to-general-election-results/
I have done similar analysis, with similar results, in local elections, though I haven't published it.
Claiming the £45m of Community Infrastructure Levy due rather than gifting it to developer mates, for example. You could buy a lot of quinoa for £45m.
Chipping Norton (Oxfordshire) council result:
Lab: 42.6% (+8.5)
Con: 40.9% (-4.3)
Grn: 10.9% (+8.2)
LDem: 5.6% (-10.6)
Lab GAIN from Con"
If it ends in pure acrimony, it will be a disaster for both the left and centre-left.
Yet we were also told that the SNP getting an outright majority was the clincher. They did not. They came very close - like the votes - but they failed.
The Greens' major issue is the environment, they are not like the SNP.
It's like saying the Tories of the noughties were the same as UKIP, and votes for both should be added together. You can't do that, yes they were both eurosceptic and most in both parties wanted a referendum, but for UKIP an EU vote was THE overriding issue.
Anyway we are where we are. Neither side wants a vote yet, so it won't happen for quite a while whatever. My guess is that the Tories will justifiably long grass it (we are recovering from Covid!) past the 2023-4 election, so as to hand the mess over to someone else, while also hoping that the SNP make a big mistake in their frustration, and the appeal of YES diminishes interim. Boris won't say a flat No, as that will inflame opinion.
It's a policy, but it worries me that this is their only policy
We have a few precious years to save the UK. A referendum is coming, probably in the 2nd half of the decade. During that time the government should set up a grand convention, as I've said, to examine all the options. From Federalism to Devomax to Indy and the other way, too. Let the indy side explicitly state their plans on currency, bank, the EU, debt, let the NO side come up with an attractive model for the future UK.
Then, fully apprised, let the nation decide and let the Scots vote.
Does the government have the wit and courage to do something like this? I doubt it. They are just gonna kick the ball away and pray
A Manchester spill over effect I suspect.
An opposition leader with bad gross ratings mid term is given false confidence by a VI lead, which is just annoyance at the government really. When it comes to selling his ideas at the GE campaign, people arent interested and the VI ticks down.
Swing back people used to call it I think. I think thats what will happen if it is Boris vs Sir Keir at the next GE
So it's likely a good number of those voters took this as a signal they could vote for the SNP, Greens, etc, because they like the party even if they don't particularly want a referendum (which would tally with the recent polls showing not huge enthusiasm for a referendum any time in the near future).
The only way to know for sure if Scottish voters really do want a referendum... is to have a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Which is marvellously recursive, if highly unlikely to happen.
Plus this time the 'Tory Hartlepool Candidate links to Tax Haven' stuff.
Which turned into demands that the Tory publish her tax return anyway, via guilt-by-association with partner. Or ex-partner. If I have it right. Which I might not, as I am not spending my Sunday afternoon probing the Rayner-Starmer shipwreck and deeper.
It's all a bit continuity-Corbyn squirrels.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1386710277278900225
The Tory candidate in Hartlepool has more connections with tax havens than she does with Hartlepool.
Why do people do business in the Cayman Islands? To avoid paying tax.
I’ve written to the Chair of the @Conservatives demanding that their candidate publishes her tax returns.
Subsequently debunked. Perhaps.
Contrary to Angela’s claim, Jill’s ex husband isn’t a ‘banker’..
...He’s a highly respected barrister, experienced financial services regulator awarded an OBE for services to regulation!
Surely Lab doesn’t oppose this work?
Is Angela judging a woman by the work of her ex?
https://twitter.com/amandamilling/status/1386722388159643649
Jill’s ex continued his work on regulation...in a job signed off by a Labour Foreign Secretary!
https://twitter.com/amandamilling/status/1386722389719928833
If that debunking is correct, presumably the Tories want her back in the Shad Cab yesterday.
I think the government should announce that it will be held next May/June.
But I think the question and franchise should be the same as last time.
Let me guess you are going to say higher minimum wage - all you do then he attract even more of a flow from countries with low minimum wage to those with higher as we saw in eastern european migration
Ah you will say then we set a global minimum wage - well apart from the obvious absurdity of getting the whole world to agree then all you do is change the flow from countries with high costs of living to those with low.
The other problem of course with high minimum wages is the more jobs you drag into the minimum wage net the less value people see in doing those jobs. If I could get the same being a barista as I get for my current job for example I would quit in an instant.
As I said easy to wave your hand airily and say legislate/ regulate not so easy to actually come up with anything to solve the issues
As a Unionist I can only hope that as politics returns to its normal tedium, as the disasters continue to clock up on the SNP watch in education, those Gupta guarantees, the restrictions on University admission for Scots because of the "free" nonsense and its implications for our University budgets, that the dial continues to turn against Sturgeon. But the power, money and influence of the Scottish government will once again be in the leave camp and once again they will give no quarter and blush at no lies. The UK government must this time stand up for itself and make the case for the Union.
Or that of small state, sound money, free enterprise?
These things are impossible to fuse together for long, "Boris" or no "Boris".
I think you can put Independent Green Voice on the Union side of the balance sheet, they're run by the bloke below. It looks like they may have denied the Greens one or two list MSP so they've probably been more effective than all the other smaller parties put together.
That’s an aside. The fact remains that however you look at it it’s impossible to argue against a vote in favour of a second referendum on these numbers. Exactly what Johnson will do next is interesting. Does he shaft his voters, shaft the Scots or shaft everyone?
Let’s assume that all incomers are entitled to the full benefits of healthcare, welfare etc from the day they arrive. You can, of course, say that they receive no recourse to public funds but personally I believe that is unethical and damaging to society as a whole.
So if you have completely free movement and arrivals benefit then you are creating a magnet: the welfare benefits that many in this country regard as too low are way above the standard of living for the vast majority in Africa, for example. Hence you will have massive immigration flows but be asking those who can afford it - the current residents - to fund that out of tax as well as accepting a reduction in their access to services (crowding in houses, healthcare, public transport etc)
It just doesn’t work in a practical world
Well, that isn’t what you want in a leader who needs to go big on policy.
The Taliban have won, haven’t they?
Oxfordshire will gain an MP at the next election, likely meaning that LD-friendly South Witney, VoWH, and South Oxfordshire will end up with 4 MPs (1LD, 2 Con, 1 new), all of which will be within reach for an organised LD campaign.
Because Boris really is incredibly dishonest.
https://twitter.com/ndtv/status/1391277456661782530
https://twitter.com/StAlbansCouncil/status/1391367904973762562
The political composition of the Council is now Lib Dems - 30 seats; Conservatives - 23; Labour - 2; Green - 1; and Independent - 2.
This includes winning three councillors in Harpenden!
@PJHeneghan
The local elections showed the Tories beating Labour by just over 100 votes across the Batley & Spen Constituency
If @TracyBrabin wins the Metro Mayor election, that forces a by-election. Potentially a hugely important by-election in another northern marginal. "
https://twitter.com/PJHeneghan/status/1391096321067700233
Meanwhile, the Tories have a manager who has won the domestic trophies. And Europe.
Fine Pie Production GAIN ..
Where you and 100% concur is in our recognition that this was THE issue which forced the Referendum (via voting for Farage pressure) and then won it for Leave. It's why Brexit happened. I think the both of us get somewhat surprised - and a touch irritated even - when hearing the concerted attempts from some of your fellow Leavers on here to rewrite history and pretend it was all about something else.
No, we are not. The result is clear and unambiguous. If delusional wazzocks want to try and argue the result isn't the result then that's pretty embarrassing for them. We - the forces of No - lost.
The highest every turnout in both % of the electorate AND actual number of votes cast
The highest number of votes ever for the SNP
The highest number of MSPs elected on a manifesto pledge for independence
What else is there to argue? The most number of people ever voted for the biggest majority ever for Yes. It is done. We need to move onto making the argument for how the United Kingdom of the next few centuries can remain united, not make petulant idiotic arguments there is no mandate.
I replied, ‘Because nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but thousands of lives have been lost trying.’
If I could see that as an 18-year-old, how come Bush, Blair, Howard, Musharraf and Putin couldn’t? Especially Putin!
Oxfordshire is rapidly turning into a Tory bloodbath.
I hope the councillor concerned is a member of Momentum or they’ll feel like a fish out of water.
Unionists can, should and will win this argument again if they are not sabotaged.
But in a posh village a few miles away which is in a LibDem area.
I suspect few of the Chipping Norton set actually live in Chipping Norton town.
"I see the Tories have lost control of Tunbridge Wells as Labour and the Libdems gain seats, Tunbridge Wells the birthplace of the revolution!! .
Disgusting doesn't remotely come close to describing it
So yes, do it the Biden way, but not how you describe.
Instead, we'll end up with a hand-wringing ultra-remainer social worker with a colourful social media history. And after we get drubbed 'lessons will be learnt'.
Well of course it is... but they won't
"@Andrew_Adonis
For what it’s worth, it is my judgement that the only Labour leader likely to be able to win the next election is Tony Blair"
Significantly various parts of the Butterley company survived into the 20C for speciality steel.
Recent big stuff included work for Sizewell B and the Falkirk Wheel.