Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
"alternative government" surely - unless you literally see their role as a permanent opposition
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
I think we can all agree seven years is not a generation.
You've missed the point. The point is that a "generation" is meaningless because it has no agreed definition. It's just a tool to justify ignoring the Scottish people's vote for a referendum.
I don't think so. If it was said at the time it was a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime vote, that really doesn't imply the next one will be seven years later, does it?
At no point did the SNP or Scottish government commit to having a vote once in a generation.
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
Certainly would electrify the B&Spen contest or Newcastle East
Deputy Leader, Shadow First Secretary of State, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work: Angela Rayner
Party Chair & Chair of Labour Policy Review: Anneliese Dodds
National Campaign Coordinator: Shabana Mahmood
•Shadow Chief Whip: Alan Campbell
•Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rachel Reeves
•Shadow Chief Secretary to HM Treasury: Bridget Phillipson
•Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: Lisa Nandy
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department: Nick Thomas-Symonds
•Shadow Secretary of State for Justice: David Lammy
•Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: John Healey
Shadow Secretary of State for BEIS: Ed Miliband
•Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Jonathan Reynolds
•Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade: Emily Thornberry
•Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Kate Green
Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport:Jo Stevens
•Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:Luke Pollard
•Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government: Steve Reed
•Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Jonathan Ashworth
•Shadow Secretary of State for Housing: Lucy Powell
•Shadow Secretary of State for Transport: Jim McMahon
•Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Preet Gill
•Shadow Secretary of State for Wales: Nia Griffith
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ian Murray
•Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Louise Haigh
•Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities: Marsha de Cordova
•Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: Thangam Debbonaire
•Shadow Attorney General: Charlie Falconer
•Shadow Secretary of State for Mental Health: Rosena Allin-Khan
•Shadow Secretary of State for Child Poverty: Wes Streeting
Shadow Secretary of State for Young People and Democracy: Cat Smith
•Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights & Protections: Andy McDonald
•Shadow Leader of the House of Lords: Angela Smith
•Opposition Chief Whip in the House:Tommy McAvoy
Other than Reeves replacing Dodds then, the right move by Starmer, no major change and Rayner stays in the Shadow Cabinet after all, again also the right move by Starmer in the end
Shabana Mahmood replaces Rayner as national campaign coordinator
That's good. At her first selection in Ladywood there were postal votes from Pakistan.
An Oxford educated lawyer you say?
That selection meeting was funny. 2 strong candidates, from 2 different ethnic groups. Expected to be close (and it was). Everybody was already anticipating some chaos.
The CLP Chair was so concentrated in checking the clock to keep the time of candidates' answers to questions that...he failed to understand the third candidate was withdrawing...
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
It is perfect for Sturgeon...she gets to claim its Boris / UK government bastards for another 4 years.
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
Probably, but he will only be able to do so by proving that the union is not actually a voluntary union of nations any more.
I wonder if Nick Brown might be tempted to step down. Newcastle upon Tyne East would be a tasty "safe seat"...
The question is whether Ed Balls could be persuaded back to save Labour from itself.
As I've said on a few previous occasions, I'd vote for Labour led by Ed Balls. I'd trust him in brexit and cultural values issues in a way I don't trust any of the current lot. He would do right by people with traditional values and I think he understands that reversing brexit would be the end of the Labour party which Starmer doesn't.
Can’t see why he’d want the bother to be honest. He seems to have a niche in TV now, similar to Portillo. A life out of the political spotight making decent money.
The soul of the Labour movement is at stake, he may want to ensure it survives. It's a bit like being asked to serve the nation.
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
Certainly would electrify the B&Spen contest or Newcastle East
Deputy Leader, Shadow First Secretary of State, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work: Angela Rayner
Party Chair & Chair of Labour Policy Review: Anneliese Dodds
National Campaign Coordinator: Shabana Mahmood
•Shadow Chief Whip: Alan Campbell
•Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rachel Reeves
•Shadow Chief Secretary to HM Treasury: Bridget Phillipson
•Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: Lisa Nandy
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department: Nick Thomas-Symonds
•Shadow Secretary of State for Justice: David Lammy
•Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: John Healey
Shadow Secretary of State for BEIS: Ed Miliband
•Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Jonathan Reynolds
•Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade: Emily Thornberry
•Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Kate Green
Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport:Jo Stevens
•Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:Luke Pollard
•Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government: Steve Reed
•Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Jonathan Ashworth
•Shadow Secretary of State for Housing: Lucy Powell
•Shadow Secretary of State for Transport: Jim McMahon
•Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Preet Gill
•Shadow Secretary of State for Wales: Nia Griffith
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ian Murray
•Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Louise Haigh
•Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities: Marsha de Cordova
•Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: Thangam Debbonaire
•Shadow Attorney General: Charlie Falconer
•Shadow Secretary of State for Mental Health: Rosena Allin-Khan
•Shadow Secretary of State for Child Poverty: Wes Streeting
Shadow Secretary of State for Young People and Democracy: Cat Smith
•Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights & Protections: Andy McDonald
•Shadow Leader of the House of Lords: Angela Smith
You can't keep saying "we will ban zero hours contracts" and have that as your policy - or a 4 day week.
What you can say is that zero hour contracts could have a higher minimum wage or that zero hour contracts could have a requirement to offer x hours instead on requests
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
Jefferson defined a political generation as either 17or 19 years, I forget which.
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
Police Scotland is an argument against fewer police forces.
Police Scotland is an oddity, because it encompasses an enormous geographical range and it places the force under central rather than local control. Of course, the Scottish Government is very centralising. You can't imagine the SNP creating elected mayoralties or combined authorities and giving them powers like Andy Burnham enjoys, even though they would almost certainly win all of them.
There is an argument for some consolidation though. Many smaller forces in England already pool resources. Would it necessarily do too much harm if they merged?
Yes. Police Scotland is an object lesson in how Police need to be local.
Making the entire Scotland police force effectively the Glasgow police force has been a massive error, How to do things in Glasgow is not how to do things in Edinburgh. Or Inverness, or the back of beyond.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
Police Scotland is an argument against fewer police forces.
Police Scotland is an oddity, because it encompasses an enormous geographical range and it places the force under central rather than local control. Of course, the Scottish Government is very centralising. You can't imagine the SNP creating elected mayoralties or combined authorities and giving them powers like Andy Burnham enjoys, even though they would almost certainly win all of them.
There is an argument for some consolidation though. Many smaller forces in England already pool resources. Would it necessarily do too much harm if they merged?
Yes. Police Scotland is an object lesson in how Police need to be local.
Making the entire Scotland police force effectively the Glasgow police force has been a massive error, How to do things in Glasgow is not how to do things in Edinburgh. Or Inverness, or the back of beyond.
Have any of the non-SNP Scottish parties advocated for devolving police powers back to local forces?
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
It’s like when Noah vanderhoff took over Wayne’s World! Labour should not be a party of corporate Lawyers for the middle aged, middle classes. It should be fresh young and rebellious
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
Certainly would electrify the B&Spen contest or Newcastle East
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
Probably, but he will only be able to do so by proving that the union is not actually a voluntary union of nations any more.
Let's park for a moment the question of whether or not the UK specifically should be such a voluntary association.
Bavaria has no right of secession from Germany. California has no right of secession from the United States.
Are the people of Bavaria and California imprisoned? Does the involuntary nature of these (and almost every other) federal union on Earth render them morally repugnant? Was Madrid wrong to tell the Catalan separatists to get stuffed?
If the UK is regarded as a voluntary arrangement then, by definition, it must also be impermanent - because, at some point, a political movement will come along which will advocate for, and achieve, its dissolution. Thus, if none of the constituent parts can rely on any of the others not to piss off at any given point in time, what is the point of this voluntary arrangement to begin with?
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
Police Scotland is an argument against fewer police forces.
Police Scotland is an oddity, because it encompasses an enormous geographical range and it places the force under central rather than local control. Of course, the Scottish Government is very centralising. You can't imagine the SNP creating elected mayoralties or combined authorities and giving them powers like Andy Burnham enjoys, even though they would almost certainly win all of them.
There is an argument for some consolidation though. Many smaller forces in England already pool resources. Would it necessarily do too much harm if they merged?
Yes. Police Scotland is an object lesson in how Police need to be local.
Making the entire Scotland police force effectively the Glasgow police force has been a massive error, How to do things in Glasgow is not how to do things in Edinburgh. Or Inverness, or the back of beyond.
Have any of the non-SNP Scottish parties advocated for devolving police powers back to local forces?
not that I'm aware of. It was in the SCon manifesto a couple of elections ago to merge all the police forces into a single body.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
Jefferson defined a political generation as either 17or 19 years, I forget which.
What did Gregor Mendel say? Or his favorite fruit fly?
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
It’s like when Noah vanderhoff took over Wayne’s World! Labour should not be a party of corporate Lawyers for the middle aged, middle classes. It should be fresh young and rebellious
The inflection point was when Labour became the party of wine drinkers and the Tories the party of pint drinkers. Those people who go to the local for a few jars after a day of work are deserting the Labour party because their conversations are no longer welcome in movement. Labour is now the party of wine at dinner parties, not a pint down the local.
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
Police Scotland is an argument against fewer police forces.
Police Scotland is an oddity, because it encompasses an enormous geographical range and it places the force under central rather than local control. Of course, the Scottish Government is very centralising. You can't imagine the SNP creating elected mayoralties or combined authorities and giving them powers like Andy Burnham enjoys, even though they would almost certainly win all of them.
There is an argument for some consolidation though. Many smaller forces in England already pool resources. Would it necessarily do too much harm if they merged?
Yes. Police Scotland is an object lesson in how Police need to be local.
Making the entire Scotland police force effectively the Glasgow police force has been a massive error, How to do things in Glasgow is not how to do things in Edinburgh. Or Inverness, or the back of beyond.
Beds, Herts and Cambs, or Norfolk and Suffolk, are somewhat different propositions to the entirety of Scotland.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
Henry Zeffman @hzeffman · 13m I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but we have our first briefing war of the new "refreshed and renewed" shadow cabinet. Allies of Starmer deny the briefing below: It "isn't true"
The SNP collected slightly over 1 million list votes in Thursday’s election, which nevertheless elected just two list MSPs because SNP voters care about power for the SNP rather than about independence, and chose to let dozens of Unionist MSPs get seats rather than other pro-indy parties.
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
It’s like when Noah vanderhoff took over Wayne’s World! Labour should not be a party of corporate Lawyers for the middle aged, middle classes. It should be fresh young and rebellious
Indeed. I note that two local surprise Labour gains on my Council (I think the only ones) were both achieved by lasses in their twenties. Since the youth vote for you, the least you could do is look like your electorate. They just might turn out for you.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
Jefferson defined a political generation as either 17or 19 years, I forget which.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
The election win doesn’t confer on the Scottish government a legal obligation to hold a Sindy vote.
Nor does it confer on them a legal right.
They could hold a referendum on removing Trident - but if they did, it would be ignored.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. The legal arcanary isn't relevant to whether they have a mandate. They do - since they won the election. And it includes making best efforts to deliver a Sindy vote. But it's just a mandate. A democratic mandate. Nothing more. Democratic mandates have no legal force.
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
Police Scotland is an argument against fewer police forces.
Police Scotland is an oddity, because it encompasses an enormous geographical range and it places the force under central rather than local control. Of course, the Scottish Government is very centralising. You can't imagine the SNP creating elected mayoralties or combined authorities and giving them powers like Andy Burnham enjoys, even though they would almost certainly win all of them.
There is an argument for some consolidation though. Many smaller forces in England already pool resources. Would it necessarily do too much harm if they merged?
Wrong question?
What's the point of merging if there is no significant benefit?
If nothing else, there are always economies of scale to be considered - and some of the smaller county constabularies could be merged without greatly increasing either the geographic extent or demographic diversity of the combined force area.
Ditching the quite awful Annaliese Dodds is a start, but at this rate it will be 2035 before Sir Keir has a credible team.
The Labour benches haven't got enough talent to make a credible team tbh. It's going to be a multi cycle struggle and it's not as though the government is particularly talented either.
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
It is perfect for Sturgeon...she gets to claim its Boris / UK government bastards for another 4 years.
I remember the same arguments were made in 2016 when May said No..
Am I correct that we are waiting only for Winchester Council? Or are there any other dog catchers or school boards I've missed?
You not getting whipped up for all the PCCs still to be elected.
Commiserations to anyone involved in the Wiltshire count, btw.
Good grief, really? Mine was done and dusted Friday. On which, why can, and why does, the NE manage to count all its elections in a quarter of the time it takes everywhere else? Durham excepted, natch.
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
It is perfect for Sturgeon...she gets to claim its Boris / UK government bastards for another 4 years.
I remember the same arguments were made in 2016 when May said No..
And here we are again with Kim Jong Sturgeon taking under the FPTP element of the election basically every seat.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
Ditching the quite awful Annaliese Dodds is a start, but at this rate it will be 2035 before Sir Keir has a credible team.
The Labour benches haven't got enough talent to make a credible team tbh. It's going to be a multi cycle struggle and it's not as though the government is particularly talented either.
Tories are very fortunate that when eventually Boris sails too close to the sun, they have decent potential replacements. In facf a Dishy Rishi might be able to win back middle class remain types.
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
Probably, but he will only be able to do so by proving that the union is not actually a voluntary union of nations any more.
Let's park for a moment the question of whether or not the UK specifically should be such a voluntary association.
Bavaria has no right of secession from Germany. California has no right of secession from the United States.
Are the people of Bavaria and California imprisoned? Does the involuntary nature of these (and almost every other) federal union on Earth render them morally repugnant? Was Madrid wrong to tell the Catalan separatists to get stuffed?
If the UK is regarded as a voluntary arrangement then, by definition, it must also be impermanent - because, at some point, a political movement will come along which will advocate for, and achieve, its dissolution. Thus, if none of the constituent parts can rely on any of the others not to piss off at any given point in time, what is the point of this voluntary arrangement to begin with?
In reality if 70% of Bavarians or Californians wanted independence they would either get it even if they had no legal or constitutional right to it or Germany or the US would have to enforce their place in the Union by force.
As it is only around 50% of Scots want independence, not 70%, Spain has also been able to resist Catalan independence demands as again Catalans are split equally on the issue
Ditching the quite awful Annaliese Dodds is a start, but at this rate it will be 2035 before Sir Keir has a credible team.
The Labour benches haven't got enough talent to make a credible team tbh. It's going to be a multi cycle struggle and it's not as though the government is particularly talented either.
There are a lot easier ways to make money than politics.
I also believe there are often far easier ways to fix social issues outside of politics than inside it
And social media means many people expect you to be there 24/7 which is completely unfair
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
#BothVotesSNP allowed 23 additional Unionists to gain seats on the list (14 CONs & 9 LAB).
If @theSNP support backed ALBA & #BothVotesYES this would have made @AlbaParty the second largest party on 31 seats in total & a pro-Indy majority of 31 as opposed to 8.
Anything now with Salmond at the helm would have done more harm than good for the Yes cause . The SNP would have been better off asking their supporters to vote Green on the list vote .
I think one thing Sturgeon set out to do was to bury Salmond/Alba completely - and in that she comprehensively succeeded. Although she didn't win a majority, it could have been worse.
Boris will of course easily brush off Sturgeon now, she has no SNP majority and has refused to hold a wildcat referendum and refused to declare UDI, both of which would have been more difficult for her to rule out had Salmond won lots of Alba MSPs on a hardline pro independence at any cost ticket.
So we continue much as before, the SNP in power, throwing its core vote scraps about independence but unable and unwilling to do anything much about it
Probably, but he will only be able to do so by proving that the union is not actually a voluntary union of nations any more.
Let's park for a moment the question of whether or not the UK specifically should be such a voluntary association.
Bavaria has no right of secession from Germany. California has no right of secession from the United States.
Are the people of Bavaria and California imprisoned? Does the involuntary nature of these (and almost every other) federal union on Earth render them morally repugnant? Was Madrid wrong to tell the Catalan separatists to get stuffed?
If the UK is regarded as a voluntary arrangement then, by definition, it must also be impermanent - because, at some point, a political movement will come along which will advocate for, and achieve, its dissolution. Thus, if none of the constituent parts can rely on any of the others not to piss off at any given point in time, what is the point of this voluntary arrangement to begin with?
Am I correct that we are waiting only for Winchester Council? Or are there any other dog catchers or school boards I've missed?
You not getting whipped up for all the PCCs still to be elected.
Commiserations to anyone involved in the Wiltshire count, btw.
Good grief, really? Mine was done and dusted Friday. On which, why can, and why does, the NE manage to count all its elections in a quarter of the time it takes everywhere else? Durham excepted, natch.
14/35 PCC areas counting Monday.
But the Wiltshire election will be null and void, as the Tory PCC elect is ineligible after an old drink driving conviction was unearthed. They will still, however, have to complete the count.
Ditching the quite awful Annaliese Dodds is a start, but at this rate it will be 2035 before Sir Keir has a credible team.
The Labour benches haven't got enough talent to make a credible team tbh. It's going to be a multi cycle struggle and it's not as though the government is particularly talented either.
There are a lot easier ways to make money than politics.
I also believe there are often far easier ways to fix social issues outside of politics than inside it
What idiot on good money would go into politics these days...no lt only is the pay no great shakes, you have to be on guard 24/7, as one slip up in public calling somebody a pleb or not wearing your mask and you are all over social media.
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
It’s like when Noah vanderhoff took over Wayne’s World! Labour should not be a party of corporate Lawyers for the middle aged, middle classes. It should be fresh young and rebellious
That’s not really compatible with the kind of centrism many want Labour to embrace though. Small c conservative traditionalist party with a few leftish economic policies isn’t really young and rebellious.
Honestly, Blair and Brown should be making phone calls to Ed Balls tonight to persuade him to return and save the Labour party. If Labour becomes a mostly Southern middle class party then it's finished. Labour needs to be the party of the working man and woman. I just don't understand how we've got to this point, it's actually quite sad that a political movement as important as Labour has forgotten why it exists. The siren calls of middle class voters should be ignored, they'll be fighting the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens for these voters and handing the Tories a monopoly of working class people.
I don't see how Starmer reconnects the party with its base. He needs to go for Labour's survival as a political movement.
It’s like when Noah vanderhoff took over Wayne’s World! Labour should not be a party of corporate Lawyers for the middle aged, middle classes. It should be fresh young and rebellious
That’s not really compatible with the kind of centrism many want Labour to embrace though. Small c conservative traditionalist party with a few leftish economic policies isn’t really young and rebellious.
Am I correct that we are waiting only for Winchester Council? Or are there any other dog catchers or school boards I've missed?
You not getting whipped up for all the PCCs still to be elected.
Commiserations to anyone involved in the Wiltshire count, btw.
Good grief, really? Mine was done and dusted Friday. On which, why can, and why does, the NE manage to count all its elections in a quarter of the time it takes everywhere else? Durham excepted, natch.
Perhaps your councils are recruiting from the nearby Sutherland Speed-Walking & Counting Academy?
Which IIRC has taken up the slack from shipbuilding?
Ditching the quite awful Annaliese Dodds is a start, but at this rate it will be 2035 before Sir Keir has a credible team.
But given the cards they've got, this isn't a stupid selection or arrangement. The old warhorses aren't coming back- why should they? And putting Rayner opposite a senior minister makes sense. So why the angst of the last 24 hours?
Was the first draft of the reshuffle a horror show and Starmer had to be made to see sense? Are those in the Shad Cab more interested in winning internal party battles than the external battle with the government? Some shadow ministers really need to have a word with their friends. Similarly, are people in the wider party more interested in doing down the leadership than everything else?
Look, I'm not a Labour supporter. I'm not a political guru, either. But it ought to be obvious. The job of the supporting actors is to make the leading man and woman look good. That way, everyone wins. If you thing the leadership are duffers, that goes doubly so. If you must ditch them, prepare silently then act swiftly and brutally.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
The SNP collected slightly over 1 million list votes in Thursday’s election, which nevertheless elected just two list MSPs because SNP voters care about power for the SNP rather than about independence, and chose to let dozens of Unionist MSPs get seats rather than other pro-indy parties.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
As the city of Dundee, with one of the worst drug death rates in the country, returns the sacked SNP minister responsible for failed government policy with an increased majority - this is the local paper's front page tomorrow:
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
If the UK is regarded as a voluntary arrangement then, by definition, it must also be impermanent - because, at some point, a political movement will come along which will advocate for, and achieve, its dissolution. Thus, if none of the constituent parts can rely on any of the others not to piss off at any given point in time, what is the point of this voluntary arrangement to begin with?
The UK has just left a union of countries. On a very basic level, it made sense for the UK to be part of that union for some time and then it made sense for the UK to not be part of that union. Much was achieved together, but ultimately paths differed. This does not invalidate the voluntary arrangement that was in place during the period it applied. Unions persist as long as all components of the union consider it to be mutually beneficial.
I don't really see why the UK needs to be any different.
The only argument to the contrary is that it isn't actually a union of constituent parts, merely that all the old identities are now dead and the only country that exists is that of the UK. And I think it will be a cold day in hell before the UK government tries to argue that.
The UK government are more than happy to expound both opposing positions that the UK is simultaneously a union of distinct constituent parts but also that ultimate jurisdiction over how that union is made/formed lies with them and them alone.
Both can't be true, so all it requires is for them to be honest and say that Scotland cannot leave the union and become independent because it is not up to Scotland.
But we know that that is not something they will ever argue. Hence the reason the only thing they can say is trot out the hoary old phrase "now is not the time". To say "no" would be to clarify the fact that it is precisely NOT a union.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
I’m thinking maybe Starmer isn’t as forensic as his supporters made out. Quite a few of us here knew a year ago Dodds was out of her depth. Still better late than never and Reeves is a small step up, although I doubt Rishi will be losing any sleep.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
... and have 650 mps not knowing whether they had won or lost.. I don't think do....
As recently as the elections of 1974 and 1979 a dood 200 seats - ie over 30% - did not begin counting until the Friday morning. On the whole, it was true of the more rural constituencie - though not exclusively so. I have never understood the obsession with having to count overnight.
Comments
The CLP Chair was so concentrated in checking the clock to keep the time of candidates' answers to questions that...he failed to understand the third candidate was withdrawing...
You can't keep saying "we will ban zero hours contracts" and have that as your policy - or a 4 day week.
Making the entire Scotland police force effectively the Glasgow police force has been a massive error, How to do things in Glasgow is not how to do things in Edinburgh. Or Inverness, or the back of beyond.
@hendopolis
·
4m
INDEPENDENT:
@jeremycorbyn
leads criticism of
@Keir_Starmer‘s vote disaster #TomorrowsPapersToday
Hopelessly divided.
Is that it?
#doomed
There is a genuine issue both now and definitely coming down the tracks.
https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOjljZjEyZTM0LWM4YzMtNDE4My04YWU3LWYyZTEwMzYzYzdmZTozNzUyYmVhNC1iN2FmLTRiN2QtYjk3YS02OGZmNGQ2MWNjMjI=.jpg?crop=982:736,smart&width=990
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/09/eu-says-wont-renew-astrazeneca-contract-pivots-towards-pfizers/
Bavaria has no right of secession from Germany. California has no right of secession from the United States.
Are the people of Bavaria and California imprisoned? Does the involuntary nature of these (and almost every other) federal union on Earth render them morally repugnant? Was Madrid wrong to tell the Catalan separatists to get stuffed?
If the UK is regarded as a voluntary arrangement then, by definition, it must also be impermanent - because, at some point, a political movement will come along which will advocate for, and achieve, its dissolution. Thus, if none of the constituent parts can rely on any of the others not to piss off at any given point in time, what is the point of this voluntary arrangement to begin with?
I think my ex girlfriends brother used to work for Rayner. Is she the 30-something granny?
Remember I'm from a town that had a headteacher telling parents that collection children in their jamas with a dressing gown wasn't appropriate.
If not, then pretty broad range of available options.
Such as midges, which I've been told are indigenous & ubiquitous Scots residents.
@hzeffman
·
13m
I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but we have our first briefing war of the new "refreshed and renewed" shadow cabinet. Allies of Starmer deny the briefing below: It "isn't true"
Dawn Of The Imbeciles
Posted on May 09, 2021 by Rev. Stuart Campbell
The SNP collected slightly over 1 million list votes in Thursday’s election, which nevertheless elected just two list MSPs because SNP voters care about power for the SNP rather than about independence, and chose to let dozens of Unionist MSPs get seats rather than other pro-indy parties.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/dawn-of-the-imbeciles/#more-130040
Since the youth vote for you, the least you could do is look like your electorate.
They just might turn out for you.
Commiserations to anyone involved in the Wiltshire count, btw.
On which, why can, and why does, the NE manage to count all its elections in a quarter of the time it takes everywhere else? Durham excepted, natch.
As it is only around 50% of Scots want independence, not 70%, Spain has also been able to resist Catalan independence demands as again Catalans are split equally on the issue
I also believe there are often far easier ways to fix social issues outside of politics than inside it
And social media means many people expect you to be there 24/7 which is completely unfair
But the Wiltshire election will be null and void, as the Tory PCC elect is ineligible after an old drink driving conviction was unearthed. They will still, however, have to complete the count.
Which IIRC has taken up the slack from shipbuilding?
Was the first draft of the reshuffle a horror show and Starmer had to be made to see sense?
Are those in the Shad Cab more interested in winning internal party battles than the external battle with the government? Some shadow ministers really need to have a word with their friends.
Similarly, are people in the wider party more interested in doing down the leadership than everything else?
Look, I'm not a Labour supporter. I'm not a political guru, either. But it ought to be obvious.
The job of the supporting actors is to make the leading man and woman look good. That way, everyone wins.
If you thing the leadership are duffers, that goes doubly so.
If you must ditch them, prepare silently then act swiftly and brutally.
Speaks to the Wisdom of Crowds.
The Senior Labour figure here is Jim McMahon, the Oldham West MP. He is always in flawless suits.
I don't really see why the UK needs to be any different.
The only argument to the contrary is that it isn't actually a union of constituent parts, merely that all the old identities are now dead and the only country that exists is that of the UK. And I think it will be a cold day in hell before the UK government tries to argue that.
The UK government are more than happy to expound both opposing positions that the UK is simultaneously a union of distinct constituent parts but also that ultimate jurisdiction over how that union is made/formed lies with them and them alone.
Both can't be true, so all it requires is for them to be honest and say that Scotland cannot leave the union and become independent because it is not up to Scotland.
But we know that that is not something they will ever argue. Hence the reason the only thing they can say is trot out the hoary old phrase "now is not the time". To say "no" would be to clarify the fact that it is precisely NOT a union.
Besides. Our hegemonic PM wouldn't win GQ best dressed man.