One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
Is "Not all of Brexit has happened yet! the new "Brexit hasn't happened yet!" ?
Of course Brexit has happened. Most of the disadvantages are now being phased in, delayed somewhat, but the effects will arrive sooner or later.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
To be honest (a rarity, I know) I can’t exactly remember. If you’re right: my bad, and my apologies
Yes I'm right.
The only people I scoffed at was the Scotch expert in Scotland who thought Alba would get 10% of the list vote and dozens of MSPs.
Anyway the big news today and I hope everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am - the Prime Minister telling us whether we are going to be allowed to hug our families.
Be still my beating heart...
Haven't seen my parents in 15 months. Expected them to die if they got Covid. Trust me, there are many of us whose heart is absolutely beating at the prospect of a hug from their mum.
Of course. But whether or not that might be safe is not going to be determined by whatever the PM might or might not say this afternoon.
True. They have now had both doses. I have had my first last week. So we're looking for a date I can come down later this month.
Point is though that going to see frail parents in the midst of a pandemic whilst exposed to pox risk on a daily basis through schools would have been bloody stupid.
Absolutely agree, and I don't dismiss the need for government to communicate health advice. However, the absurd 'drama' of today's supposed announcement is more than a little silly.
It is. I don't hold much truck with the argument that government has been too intrusive and assumed too many powers during the pandemic - I think by and large this aspect has been appropriate to the situation - but I'm not keen on how the psychology of it all is working so heavily in their political favour.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
That's not convincing. I'd been fairly sceptical simply because of the Scottish Pmt voting system which is intensely nonlinear. Total contrast to FPTP (which is also nonlinear but in the other direction).
Nat majority was odds-on at one point. That’s just a fact
Ah, the betting market? Fair enough. I was thinking of the other meaning.
Anyway the big news today and I hope everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am - the Prime Minister telling us whether we are going to be allowed to hug our families.
Be still my beating heart...
Haven't seen my parents in 15 months. Expected them to die if they got Covid. Trust me, there are many of us whose heart is absolutely beating at the prospect of a hug from their mum.
Of course. But whether or not that might be safe is not going to be determined by whatever the PM might or might not say this afternoon.
True. They have now had both doses. I have had my first last week. So we're looking for a date I can come down later this month.
Point is though that going to see frail parents in the midst of a pandemic whilst exposed to pox risk on a daily basis through schools would have been bloody stupid.
Absolutely agree, and I don't dismiss the need for government to communicate health advice. However, the absurd 'drama' of today's supposed announcement is more than a little silly.
It is. I don't hold much truck with the argument that government has been too intrusive and assumed too many powers during the pandemic - I think by and large this aspect has been appropriate to the situation - but I'm not keen on how the psychology of it all is working so heavily in their political favour.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
No no, he has a point. "If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves". Which is true! Except that there is a shortage of qualified drivers so money is not the issue.
What the industry will do is what we saw with Covid - find solutions. There is a major difference though. To fix the Covid supply chain problems they were allowed to drop their legal barriers and co-operate with each other. That dispensation will not be given this time.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
You're the one betraying ignorance in thinking that companies will stand back and do nothing while their supply chain collapses. 🙄
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
You can't get 15,000 drivers to do the job of say 25,000 drivers. Especially when most of the 15,000 have spare cash and are looking forward to some time off.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between a slim mathematical majority off the back of a Scotland being split 50:50, and a very clear one. Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics. Instead, the nationalists have barely advanced at all. That means the mandate is weak and there's considerable scope on comes next. Scottish independence is not inevitable.
You attack a straw-man, together with some playground insults, because you can't fathom the complexities of the politics and the nuances.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
Yes. It is. You know someone else has stolen your vote, and your money. It might not prevent the crime but it does detect it.
Remind me not to bank with you.
I agree, Does this mean if you haven't noticed a bank fraud then there hasn't been a crime? This would be analogous to not noticing a personation for a person who didn't vote, or had died.
Great to see Boris’s Tories described as ‘Blue Labour’. That’s who I have wanted to vote for all along. I thought Ed Miliband was going to go down that route when he enlisted the help of Maurice Glasman, but he bottled it. It seems many ex Labour voters feel the same
Bluekip is more accurate. Which still suits you, I guess.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
Over the past 10 years the trend doesn't look up tbh.
I pay £1.09 for a 4 pint bottle, that works out at 27.25p per pint which is well below your average. On the other hand some of my neighbours get milk delivered by a local milkman (who coincidentally knocked on my door this weekend asking if I was interested). The milkman charges 50p per pint.
Not sure why some people choose to pay twice the price in order to get milk dropped off by a milkman, but some people still do. My grandparents do. Its not an idea I can understand at all.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
Was that one of his hot tips? Lol!
Yes, if that’s what I said (and TSE might be right) it’s not the best betting advice, HOWEVER I’m pretty sure it was at the height of Salmondgate when Sturgeon was telling 300 lies-an-hour to the televised committee. And a total Nat implosion did not seem impossible. And the odds were very generous - something like 20/1?
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
Is "Not all of Brexit has happened yet! the new "Brexit hasn't happened yet!" ?
Of course Brexit has happened. Most of the disadvantages are now being phased in, delayed somewhat, but the effects will arrive sooner or later.
I think some will be waiting decades for these to arrive.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
Away from the red wall, the tory performance was distinctly underwhelming, particularly Surrey. Elsewhere in the home counties and the shires? meh....
Hardly surprising, since that's where Johnson will be coming for the money to fund his tax and spend socialism. And that's where living standards are going to get pinched when inflation from money printing arrives.
The Tory losses in the south, such as they were, were the result of Remainers peeling off, just like in GE2019, and some demographic change as educated types move out of expensive cities into the surrounding areas. But for the time being those fairly minor effects are greatly outweighed by our hoovering (Dysoning?) up votes by the ton in the Midlands and North.
If economically right-wing people in the South - I'm one of them - get irritated by the policies needed to dominate the North, are they going to defect sufficiently to Labour / LD / Green to allow in a government that will tax them even more, with added wokeness to boot? I kind of doubt it.
As I notice you've been gracious enough to concede, Reform et al. got absolutely nowhere in these elections. But then why should the right split when we can sink our differences over mugs of lefty tears?
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
The mandate is weak - vetoing the bill however creates a real grievance that will be played up over the next 3 years.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
Over the past 10 years the trend doesn't look up tbh.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
Was that one of his hot tips? Lol!
When Alba entered the fray some people thought SNP not to be largest party was value (I think it was 200/1) but with Alba not contesting the constituency section it was a no brainer for those of us who understand the voting system.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
No no, he has a point. "If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves". Which is true! Except that there is a shortage of qualified drivers so money is not the issue.
What the industry will do is what we saw with Covid - find solutions. There is a major difference though. To fix the Covid supply chain problems they were allowed to drop their legal barriers and co-operate with each other. That dispensation will not be given this time.
Not sure. Someone in govt, surely, is aware. There will be dispensations. Enough and yet unintelligible for all sides to say "told you so".
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
You're the one betraying ignorance in thinking that companies will stand back and do nothing while their supply chain collapses. 🙄
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
You can't get 15,000 drivers to do the job of say 25,000 drivers. Especially when most of the 15,000 have spare cash and are looking forward to some time off.
Excuses, excuses.
Companies will pay what they need to do in order to get it delivered. Pay enough and people will choose not to take time off now, or re-enter the market, or enter it for the first time.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
Yes. It is. You know someone else has stolen your vote, and your money. It might not prevent the crime but it does detect it.
Remind me not to bank with you.
Aiui you would be given a provisional vote. The key observation is we can believe the personation statistics to within an order of magnitude, just like we can count the number of bank accounts that have been cleaned out.
Electoral fraud is uncommon, especially personation. There might be legitimate concerns around postal votes but that is not relevant to requiring ID at the polling station.
It is rare because it is easy to detect but also because there is not much to be gained unless you can arrange personation on a massive scale.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
Many happy marriages work exactly this way. Perhaps most
Anyway the big news today and I hope everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am - the Prime Minister telling us whether we are going to be allowed to hug our families.
Be still my beating heart...
Haven't seen my parents in 15 months. Expected them to die if they got Covid. Trust me, there are many of us whose heart is absolutely beating at the prospect of a hug from their mum.
Of course. But whether or not that might be safe is not going to be determined by whatever the PM might or might not say this afternoon.
True. They have now had both doses. I have had my first last week. So we're looking for a date I can come down later this month.
Point is though that going to see frail parents in the midst of a pandemic whilst exposed to pox risk on a daily basis through schools would have been bloody stupid.
Absolutely agree, and I don't dismiss the need for government to communicate health advice. However, the absurd 'drama' of today's supposed announcement is more than a little silly.
It is. I don't hold much truck with the argument that government has been too intrusive and assumed too many powers during the pandemic - I think by and large this aspect has been appropriate to the situation - but I'm not keen on how the psychology of it all is working so heavily in their political favour.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
You are just beginning to realise all of this?
Big Nurse won't be so popular when she runs out of money. When Boris talks about the broad shoulders of the UK treasury what he really means is the broad shoulders of his core voters in the South outside London and Bristol.
Those voters are feeling uneasy. When Johnson hits them for six with higher taxes and inflates away their prosperity, things will get much worse.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
Over the past 10 years the trend doesn't look up tbh.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
You're the one betraying ignorance in thinking that companies will stand back and do nothing while their supply chain collapses. 🙄
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
You can't get 15,000 drivers to do the job of say 25,000 drivers. Especially when most of the 15,000 have spare cash and are looking forward to some time off.
Excuses, excuses.
Companies will pay what they need to do in order to get it delivered. Pay enough and people will choose not to take time off now, or re-enter the market, or enter it for the first time.
1) possible - but unlikely - the market is full of self-employed drivers who are currently "on strike" 2) possible - but there aren't that many of them, most have been working through covid. 3) takes 3 months minimum.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between a slim mathematical majority off the back of a Scotland being split 50:50, and a very clear one. Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics. Instead, the nationalists have barely advanced at all. That means the mandate is weak and there's considerable scope on comes next. Scottish independence is not inevitable.
You attack a straw-man, together with some playground insults, because you can't fathom the complexities of the politics and the nuances.
Again I point out that the hurdles to clear - "Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics" is one not set in Scotland. A 4th term government re-elected on the biggest every turnout and its biggest every vote is "barely advancing at all" yet in England the Tories the 4th term won by Johnson is the End of History.
I am not an SNP supporter. But its a special kind of delusion that insists they have not advanced and have no mandate above a weak one. A majority of 8 is the largest ever in Holyrood for independence.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
The Union was predicated on a merger that gave Scotland security, solvency, and opportunities to play a greater role in global affairs.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
The vast majority of No voters oppose indyref2, a plurality ever, the vast majority of Tory, Labour and LD votes cast on Thursday in Scotland, including tactical Unionist votes, were to oppose indyref2 and keep the Union.
The SNP failed to match the majority they got in 2011 before indyref2 and should not get indyref2 until a generation has elapsed since 2014.
Yes that will infuriate SNP, Green list and Alba voters but who cares, 99% of them would vote Yes whether indyref2 was held tomorrow or in 5 or 10 years time.
Appeasing the Nationalists however means we will get neverendums with the SNP calling independence referendums whenever they want, allowed by a weak UK government, until they get the Yes result they want
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
If the government expect us to show photo ID to vote, then they should avail us of a universal form of photo ID, issued free of charge. A national ID card, if you will.
Of course, those on the right will scream that it is an intolerable outrage to expect a freeborn Englishman to carry an ID card; that will make us akin to a police state.
Accept when it comes to voting, apparently, when it's being justified to tackle a problem - voter fraud - that doesn't exist in any meaningful way in this country.
It's the shamelessness that really galls.
It's quite transparent why they are doing so. A day after the Conservatives lose but two mayoralties they decide, let's change the system to our advantage.
I have a feeling that once the Covid dust settles, these sort of Dick Dastardly scams will blow up in their faces.
The only reason we have the Supplementary Vote system for Mayoral elections, rather than AV, is that SV is better for Labour than AV. It was a scam in the first place.
I prefer a Labour scam to a Tory one, but the status quo is short of a democratic ideal.
Given that 1/6 of votes in London were cast incorrectly SV seems too complex for the benefits it offers.
The problem with the London Mayor election was not the voting system but the confusing design of the ballot paper, as explored on previous threads.
A friend of mine, who is a qualified accountant aged 61 told me he voted Bailey first choice and Fox second, he said that he knew Fox couldn't win but he wanted him to get as many votes as possible and he wanted Bailey to beat Khan.
He was surprised when I told him that he should have voted them the other way round and I explained the voting system to him. If professionally qualified people don't understand the system what chance has the Hoi polloi?
There were too many candidates, the £10,000 deposit didn't put them off so in future I suggest that they up the number accenting signatures from each borough from 2 to say 20. This won't be any problem for the main parties or any small parties and independents with serious levels of support but might put off a few no hopers.
Yet another argument in favour of the best voting system: Approval Voting!
Simplicity wins out every time & approval voting is the simplest system that fixes the worst sins of FPTP. The nerds can keep their ranked votes with Condorcet counts & Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping to eliminate ties - Approval voting is where it’s at.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
They need to paint the SNP and Tories as two sides of the same coin.
The Tories led Scotland out of the EU single market, now the SNP want to drive Scotland out of the UK single market.
It's like saying the solution to losing one leg in an accident is to chop off the other one.
Whether SLabour are capable of driving that argument I'm not sure, but Asas seems as capable as anyone else.
While I tend to agree that there's probably not a big problem.... How do we know there's no significant voter fraud? How would we know? Other than lots of people turning up to discover that htey'd already voted? If you knew a group of people who were very unlikely to vote, then you could rock up at the polling stations and take their votes.
(I also tend to take the view that we should have evidence of a problem before trying to fix it).
A reminder that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 cases of any kind at the 2019 general election. Across all elections in 2019 the police found it necessary to issue a mere 2 cautions. Electoral Commission says UK has “low levels of proven electoral fraud.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1391687736915070977/photo/1
In a system with no provision for detecting it.
There is a system for detecting electoral fraud. If you turn up at the polling station and are solemnly informed you have already voted, that is prima facie evidence of personation. Likewise if the person pretending to be you turns up afterwards.
Ok. So if someone empties my bank account, and I later in the day try to take money out and am told I have no funds, that's an efficient system for detecting fraud?
Yes. It is. You know someone else has stolen your vote, and your money. It might not prevent the crime but it does detect it.
Remind me not to bank with you.
Aiui you would be given a provisional vote. The key observation is we can believe the personation statistics to within an order of magnitude, just like we can count the number of bank accounts that have been cleaned out.
Electoral fraud is uncommon, especially personation. There might be legitimate concerns around postal votes but that is not relevant to requiring ID at the polling station.
It is rare because it is easy to detect but also because there is not much to be gained unless you can arrange personation on a massive scale.
Presumably the point is that the levels of detection rather than police action are the important stat - even if Plod does sod all about it. Are we sure all cases of apparent personation are reported, BTW?
They could put CCTV in polling stations, for that matter, to help Plod if they were so worried about personation.
I know Oxfordshire went seriously Lib Dem, but posting a bar chart, @BluestBlue? That's one of the key symptoms.
Quick, to the clinic with you, before you destroy us all.
Ah, I admire a brave face, but the numbers don't lie: you're relying on a man who just put in a more diabolical local elections performance than Corbyn and IDS to beat Boris, who also holds a 40-year vote share record - just the other way around, and for a general election at that...
Then you misunderstand.
My working hypothesis is that Starmer can't destroy Boris. The point is that he doesn't need to- Boris is more than capable of destroying himself.
Yes, of course the Tory Party will let the leader who's given them national hegemony and continues to take seats from the Opposition (!) go over some wallpaper. Wake up, man.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
May I refer you to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57021128 for what will happen next (half my linkedIn feed this money is their rapid use of MUCs by dubious and desperate driver agencies).
The whole driver labour market is tied up with a set of contracts that simply cannot survive a 30% deduction in available labour and a 30% increase in costs.
Both of those items have occurred since April and next week is going to be an entertaining nightmare for those watching at a distance.
Well then considering the referendum was nearly five years ago the companies that have signed stupid contracts will get replaced with ones that haven't, if need be.
Granted it's american but there is a great chapter on transport that is identical to how things work here - basically it's a low wage nightmare that requires constant new recruits.
And Covid, Brexit and some tax changes have created a total storm that is going to be impossible to fix without fundamental changes.
Indeed - and the drivers I know voted for fundamental change by voting for Brexit.
And not all HGV driving can be low paid. Someone I know from my local pub who is a self-employed HGV driver earns (or claims to, but I see no reason he'd lie) ~£20 to £25 per hour driving. He's self-employed and won't take jobs that don't pay him enough. That was pre-Covid, so pre-Brexit, I haven't seen him since lockdown. More than you get driving for Deliveroo.
I suspect at the moment he isn't working then as take home pay has dropped 25-30% for your typical self-employed driver now the agencies can't skirt tax.
Maybe, I've not spoken to him in a couple of years, he's a pub mate not a close friend.
But if there's a pool of such drivers who aren't working now, and there's a shortage of drivers, then I think I see a solution. 🤔
So increase wages - but you have a fixed price deal with the supplier so who picks up the extra wage costs?
That's for the market to resolve.
If a supplier can't do it profitably then they either need to renegotiate and resolve the issues, or go out of business and new suppliers will be needed who will come in demanding higher prices.
And how long will that take to play out? It's not going to be instant and it will take over a long time.
Yet the current problems are immediate (they started in April and are getting worse).
Actually the market is pretty instant at resolving issues. If companies face empty shelves they will pay what needs to be paid to fill the shelves, if its profitable to do so.
The supermarkets faced a bigger shock with Covid. They could overcome that, they can overcome this. They may not want to, but that's a different question.
Really - so once again you are an expert in a market you have zero knowledge about as demonstrated in all your posts so far.
With luck your furlough may finish soon and you may start to see how the real world works.
You're the one betraying ignorance in thinking that companies will stand back and do nothing while their supply chain collapses. 🙄
Remind me when that happened last, and the companies didn't step in and do whatever it takes to swiftly get things resolved. Any time will do.
You can't get 15,000 drivers to do the job of say 25,000 drivers. Especially when most of the 15,000 have spare cash and are looking forward to some time off.
Excuses, excuses.
Companies will pay what they need to do in order to get it delivered. Pay enough and people will choose not to take time off now, or re-enter the market, or enter it for the first time.
1) possible - but unlikely - the market is full of self-employed drivers who are currently "on strike" 2) possible - but there aren't that many of them, most have been working through covid. 3) takes 3 months minimum.
If it takes 3 months then stop whining and get on with it.
Were coming up to the fifth anniversary of voting to leave the EU, we left over a year ago, we left transition over four months ago - and you're bitching and moaning about a couple of months to train up people?
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
You can get two pints for less than that if you shop around
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Now's the time to man up, the shape of the battlefield is changing.
Since 2014 the Nats have had the advantage of no real opposition as Brexit overshadowed everything until 2019, May fked up the election so HMG came to a standstill and Covid picked up where Brexit left off. A chaotic Westminster spent no time looking at a unified SNP.
Time marches on.
Looking forward Brexit has now been put to bed, CV19 will be hopefully a bad memory by the end of this year and HMG has a strong majority and no real opposition bar the Nats. Add in that Sturgeon now has to fight a guerilla war with Alba in her heartland, unionist tactical voting will get better organised and she has a shit record on many aspects of her government .
So Scotland moves up the UK govts agenda, the Nats actually face proper opposition and at some point lady luck ditches Sturgeon and decides she's off somewhere else. Could well be Nicola Merkel in 12 months time.
Despite appearances it is hardly even a battlefield. Nicola does not have the votes, the polling support for independence, or the polling support for a referendum in the foreseeable future; and that is before this tricky and uncompromising government starts trying; and before the many hurdles become even more obvious.
When the polling for independence + polling for doing it in a foreseeable timetable regularly tops 59/60% it will be time to think again. I can't see it myself.
Does Nicola sound like someone who is passionate to be let of the leash of covid to have a referendum absolutely the first moment she can because she is so keen and so sure she will win handsomely?
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
The mandate is weak - vetoing the bill however creates a real grievance that will be played up over the next 3 years.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
Yes, absolutely.
The Scottish government will go head to head with the UK government because its win - win. If as expected the UK government blocks Holyrood from doing what it wax elected to do, then support for independence grows. If the UK government attach unacceptable caveats to agree a referendum, then support for independence grows.
It is only if Johnson says "yeah ok, when do you want to hold it" that nippy is in trouble.
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
Was that one of his hot tips? Lol!
And another of his predictions that was misremembered as much better than it was!
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
I don't know much about Scottish politics, but I wonder whether some Scots vote the SNP way because they think it ensures the best deal for Scotland.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
Many happy marriages work exactly this way. Perhaps most
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between a slim mathematical majority off the back of a Scotland being split 50:50, and a very clear one. Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics. Instead, the nationalists have barely advanced at all. That means the mandate is weak and there's considerable scope on comes next. Scottish independence is not inevitable.
You attack a straw-man, together with some playground insults, because you can't fathom the complexities of the politics and the nuances.
Again I point out that the hurdles to clear - "Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics" is one not set in Scotland. A 4th term government re-elected on the biggest every turnout and its biggest every vote is "barely advancing at all" yet in England the Tories the 4th term won by Johnson is the End of History.
I am not an SNP supporter. But its a special kind of delusion that insists they have not advanced and have no mandate above a weak one. A majority of 8 is the largest ever in Holyrood for independence.
Also Alba showed the SNP how to maximise seats in the next election. create a "child/list" party and ensure voters redirect their votes in the appropriate direction.
I suspect the independence majority will be bigger than 8 next time round.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Were the reasons positive or negative? Sorry, I'm being dim.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Well you're not going to find Hannah Arendt levels of political insight on the back streets of Hartlepool.
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
If the government expect us to show photo ID to vote, then they should avail us of a universal form of photo ID, issued free of charge. A national ID card, if you will.
Of course, those on the right will scream that it is an intolerable outrage to expect a freeborn Englishman to carry an ID card; that will make us akin to a police state.
Accept when it comes to voting, apparently, when it's being justified to tackle a problem - voter fraud - that doesn't exist in any meaningful way in this country.
It's the shamelessness that really galls.
It's an expensive solution to a non existent problem. As of August 2020, one conviction and one caution had been secured for personation offences at elections held in 2019. There had been 20 allegations and the majority of cases led to no action....
A couple of orders of magnitude less than might be put off voting by this unnecessary scheme, very probably.
It is entirely reasonable to ask someone to prove their identity to vote, like you need to do to open a bank account etc.
It is also important to make sure that everyone has access to appropriate ID. Passports and driver’s licenses are obvious but we should also make sure that those who don’t have those have an alternative.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
The mandate is weak - vetoing the bill however creates a real grievance that will be played up over the next 3 years.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
Yes, absolutely.
The Scottish government will go head to head with the UK government because its win - win. If as expected the UK government blocks Holyrood from doing what it wax elected to do, then support for independence grows. If the UK government attach unacceptable caveats to agree a referendum, then support for independence grows.
It is only if Johnson says "yeah ok, when do you want to hold it" that nippy is in trouble.
Absolutely. Time for Johnson to call Sturgeon's hand. Are there Scots who vote SNP because they want the best deal and not independence?
Just so I can annoy everyone, I should add that two and a bit years in Hong Kong have changed my views on ID cards in general. Having been a die hard agnostic, I am now firmly in favour.
having now spent years flying round Europe (and dealing with Identification in places like Banks) there is a lot of convenience in having a single piece of card that confirms the person is who they claim to be.
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
It's like super league football. The idea of day after counting is obviously sensible except (a) it isn't and (b) politics nerds are like football nerds. They are wedded to tradition, custom and the Sunderland's moment in the sun at about 1 am and the thrill of political defenestration at 3 am. Nothing can replace it in fans' affections. The thought of allowing John Curtice to go to sleep any time until about Friday evening. The horror of it.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
*The SNP* won't dictate terms. The Scottish Parliament will dictate terms. The government will propose a bill. MSPs will debate and amend the bill. With a record number of MSPs to vote for this the mandate won't seem pretty weak when the bill steamrollers through Holyrood.
Can you get why your argument is head-scratchingly dumb? England cannot tell Scotland what it voted for. "You have voted in record numbers for independence but I can sit here in another nation saying that you didn't or that you didn't clear a hurdle that I set or when you only look at the constituency votes etc etc"
If you want to maintain the union, attack this head on. Scotland voted clearly and emphatically for MSPs committed to leave the UK. Saying "no you didn't" only increases how big the Yes vote eventually will be.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between a slim mathematical majority off the back of a Scotland being split 50:50, and a very clear one. Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics. Instead, the nationalists have barely advanced at all. That means the mandate is weak and there's considerable scope on comes next. Scottish independence is not inevitable.
You attack a straw-man, together with some playground insults, because you can't fathom the complexities of the politics and the nuances.
Again I point out that the hurdles to clear - "Brexit was supposed to lead to a slam-dunk sea-change in Scottish politics" is one not set in Scotland. A 4th term government re-elected on the biggest every turnout and its biggest every vote is "barely advancing at all" yet in England the Tories the 4th term won by Johnson is the End of History.
I am not an SNP supporter. But its a special kind of delusion that insists they have not advanced and have no mandate above a weak one. A majority of 8 is the largest ever in Holyrood for independence.
Also Alba showed the SNP how to maximise seats in the next election. create a "child/list" party and ensure voters redirect their votes in the appropriate direction.
I suspect the independence majority will be bigger than 8 next time round.
Been like that for decades with SNP/SG, Labour/Trots at the least. Though Tommy Sheridan's mob did rather disappear.
PS Also Tories/UKIP. Not sure about SLD, probably because they count as a wee party anyway in most of Scotland and a grown up party in their homelands.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
Suspect "Brexiteer" is a term that the left and the Nats will still be droning on about in 40-50 years long after its relevance has passed.
It's the new "Fatcha"
Given Brexit isn't finished yet by a long chalk, with the October regulations still to come in, the protective film has hardly worn off that term.
Is "Not all of Brexit has happened yet! the new "Brexit hasn't happened yet!" ?
Of course Brexit has happened. Most of the disadvantages are now being phased in, delayed somewhat, but the effects will arrive sooner or later.
I think some will be waiting decades for these to arrive.
The rest of us will move on.
I am sure most people will move on, me included, but it won't stop things being pointed out when they do occur, usually at the following elections.
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
Yes. A Nat majority was odds-on at one point, and I remember TSE scoffing at me for suggesting that a punt on NOM was value
Err did I?
Or did I scoff at you for saying SNP not to be the largest party was value.
Was that one of his hot tips? Lol!
Yes, if that’s what I said (and TSE might be right) it’s not the best betting advice, HOWEVER I’m pretty sure it was at the height of Salmondgate when Sturgeon was telling 300 lies-an-hour to the televised committee. And a total Nat implosion did not seem impossible. And the odds were very generous - something like 20/1?
Think they were 40/1 plus at one point. You can’t eat value etc.
I recall during Salmondgate you had one of your rare foray’s into objectivity and did wonder if the avalanche of opinion from the Speccie, Tele, Andra Neil, Dave Davis etc that Sturgeon was a lying, vindictive cow and Salmond the Dreyfus du jour might lack a little balance. More of that please.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
They need to paint the SNP and Tories as two sides of the same coin.
The Tories led Scotland out of the EU single market, now the SNP want to drive Scotland out of the UK single market.
It's like saying the solution to losing one leg in an accident is to chop off the other one.
Whether SLabour are capable of driving that argument I'm not sure, but Asas seems as capable as anyone else.
In the end, Scottish labour are both delusional and selfish. Their ultimate aim is to avoid, at all costs, a unionist party in Scotland along the lines of the DUP/UUP in Ulster, which could be relied upon to support a minority tory government in extremis.
They hark back to the days when labour send 40-odd fiery MPs south every five years. It ain't coming back.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
The Union was predicated on a merger that gave Scotland security, solvency, and opportunities to play a greater role in global affairs.
Given that the Borders, Shetland, Orkney and big swathes of the mainland want and will remain British - does Nicola really want to be remembered as the FM who split up Scotland ?
@RochdalePioneers to all intents and purposes the Scottish Parliament result is virtually identical to the elections held in 2016, before Brexit took place.
Given how high the SNP and Yes were riding, and expectations accordingly, then, yes, I'd say they'd gone backwards; it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The main difference is the SNP were seeking an explicit mandate to have another IndyRef, which they did not in 2016, so it's now a question of tactics on what both sides do next.
The key words here are "I'd say". You are perfectly entitled to describe a record ever vote for the SNP on a record ever turnout as going backwards. The laws of both maths and logic demonstrate that this is not a factually correct view.
I make no call as to what happens next. I am not advocating Scottish independence. I am simply pointing out the frankly toddler arguments that a win isn't a win, that a mandate isn't a mandate, that a vote tally or MSP count isn't what it is because you don't like the result.
The SNP didn't win an overall majority. That absolutely wasn't their expectation, despite what they say now.
They have a mandate but it's a technical and diminished one.
It isn't an SNP mandate. Its a mandate from the record number of MSPs elected on the platform of independence. Again, your arguments are only valid if you set aside the Green Party. You may choose to do so, the real world does not.
"It isn't an SNP mandate."
Thank you.
lol - is that your argument? So when 72 MSPs vote for a new independence bill, the opposition parties simply say "excuse me Greens, although you were elected on a mandate to vote for a new independence bill you can't actually do so because you aren't SNP".
Do you understand how multi-party politics work?
We're going round in circles here. The votes clearly exist to pass a bill for a new independence referendum.
What I'm saying is the mandate is weak. That will affect (greatly, in my view) the politics that comes next because the SNP are in no position to dictate terms.
The mandate is weak - vetoing the bill however creates a real grievance that will be played up over the next 3 years.
Best to hope that ways are found to kill the bill before it actually gets to the point that the UK Government looks like the bad guys.
Yes, absolutely.
The Scottish government will go head to head with the UK government because its win - win. If as expected the UK government blocks Holyrood from doing what it wax elected to do, then support for independence grows. If the UK government attach unacceptable caveats to agree a referendum, then support for independence grows.
It is only if Johnson says "yeah ok, when do you want to hold it" that nippy is in trouble.
Rubbish, on 50% 50% current indyref2 polling allowing an indyref2 tomorrow when no SNP majority means there is a 50% chance the Scots would vote for independence. No would only win narrowly even if it did win and the Nationalists would then demand indyref3 the day after so it would solve nothing.
Banning indyref2 for at least 5 years however ensures 0% chance of Scottish independence for that timeframe and it would not change the independence voting intention one iota as the vast majority of No voters oppose allowing indyref2 for at least a generation anyway, only most Yes voters want one now
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
They need to paint the SNP and Tories as two sides of the same coin.
The Tories led Scotland out of the EU single market, now the SNP want to drive Scotland out of the UK single market.
It's like saying the solution to losing one leg in an accident is to chop off the other one.
Whether SLabour are capable of driving that argument I'm not sure, but Asas seems as capable as anyone else.
In the end, Scottish labour are both delusional and selfish. Their ultimate aim is to avoid, at all costs, a unionist party in Scotland along the lines of the DUP/UUP in Ulster, which could be relied upon to support a minority tory government in extremis.
They hark back to the days when labour send 40-odd fiery MPs south every five years. It ain't coming back.
I think avoiding the secterianisation of politics is a bloody good idea. Anyone that looks at Northern Ireland for political inspiration must be barking mad.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Old dears never leave the house without their bus pass. Whether they need a bus or not...
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
Shoppers moving en masse to Aldi, who squeeze prices by ruthlessly driving complexity out of their internal purchasing & provisioning, is exactly what market forces are meant to achieve, no?
By all accounts Aldi have a pretty good reputation for treating their suppliers well & I’m told they have significantly better payment terms than the big UK supermarkets. Producers should be using Aldi’s terms as a stick to beat Tesco with.
One thought about any upcoming Scottish Independence vote. The NO side would have to get the Tory Brexiteers to basically shut up and vanish from the debate.
Put the remainers front and centre of the debate. Tie a vote for independence to a vote for Brexit, and say "don't make the same reckless mistake twice".
Which Tories aren't shiny, newly minted Brexiteers now? Or are you suggesting that all Tories should do a Boris and hide in a fridge for the duration?
It's also a very good question whether SLAB are willing to be the penal battalions for the Tories again. Even Baroness-to-be (and probably by then) Davidson would have trouble up front, and Mr Johnson can't simply not come to Scotland like he didn't in the last election campaign.
The noises Anas was making during the election suggests SLab wouldn't touch the Tories with an asbestos glove holding a 40ft barge pole. The differentiation, neither one nor the other strategy is pretty set for SLab I think, whether it bears fruit in the long term is yet to be seen.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
They need to paint the SNP and Tories as two sides of the same coin.
The Tories led Scotland out of the EU single market, now the SNP want to drive Scotland out of the UK single market.
It's like saying the solution to losing one leg in an accident is to chop off the other one.
Whether SLabour are capable of driving that argument I'm not sure, but Asas seems as capable as anyone else.
In the end, Scottish labour are both delusional and selfish. Their ultimate aim is to avoid, at all costs, a unionist party in Scotland along the lines of the DUP/UUP in Ulster, which could be relied upon to support a minority tory government in extremis.
They hark back to the days when labour send 40-odd fiery MPs south every five years. It ain't coming back.
SCUP IS a DUP style party already in the sense that the U bit is in the Ulster not UK sense. But that is a nomenclatorial pedantry. More relevantly, are SLAB being irrational because they don't want to cut their throat once again and repeat the experience of losing 40 MPs?
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Then if the farmer goes bankrupt then another farmer with lower cost base will need to step in, or other farmers will charge more for their milk, or Tesco will have no milk. 🤷♂️
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Well you're not going to find Hannah Arendt levels of political insight on the back streets of Hartlepool.
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
If the government expect us to show photo ID to vote, then they should avail us of a universal form of photo ID, issued free of charge. A national ID card, if you will.
Of course, those on the right will scream that it is an intolerable outrage to expect a freeborn Englishman to carry an ID card; that will make us akin to a police state.
Accept when it comes to voting, apparently, when it's being justified to tackle a problem - voter fraud - that doesn't exist in any meaningful way in this country.
It's the shamelessness that really galls.
It's quite transparent why they are doing so. A day after the Conservatives lose but two mayoralties they decide, let's change the system to our advantage.
I have a feeling that once the Covid dust settles, these sort of Dick Dastardly scams will blow up in their faces.
The only reason we have the Supplementary Vote system for Mayoral elections, rather than AV, is that SV is better for Labour than AV. It was a scam in the first place.
I prefer a Labour scam to a Tory one, but the status quo is short of a democratic ideal.
Given that 1/6 of votes in London were cast incorrectly SV seems too complex for the benefits it offers.
The problem with the London Mayor election was not the voting system but the confusing design of the ballot paper, as explored on previous threads.
A friend of mine, who is a qualified accountant aged 61 told me he voted Bailey first choice and Fox second, he said that he knew Fox couldn't win but he wanted him to get as many votes as possible and he wanted Bailey to beat Khan.
He was surprised when I told him that he should have voted them the other way round and I explained the voting system to him. If professionally qualified people don't understand the system what chance has the Hoi polloi?
There were too many candidates, the £10,000 deposit didn't put them off so in future I suggest that they up the number accenting signatures from each borough from 2 to say 20. This won't be any problem for the main parties or any small parties and independents with serious levels of support but might put off a few no hopers.
Yet another argument in favour of the best voting system: Approval Voting!
Simplicity wins out every time & approval voting is the simplest system that fixes the worst sins of FPTP. The nerds can keep their ranked votes with Condorcet counts & Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping to eliminate ties - Approval voting is where it’s at.
I am sorry to say that the people who find the simplest forms of AV over complicated are going to struggle with Approval voting. Perhaps the best single point in favour of FPTP is that if you can understand who won the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and why, you can get FPTP.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Then if the farmer goes bankrupt then another farmer with lower cost base will need to step in, or other farmers will charge more for their milk, or Tesco will have no milk. 🤷♂️
How quickly do most people go bankrupt?
Hint for most firms it's a slow drip effect until some external factor removes the final string that was holding everything together.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Or grow quinoa or something. At which point, what happens to the milk supply?
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Then if the farmer goes bankrupt then another farmer with lower cost base will need to step in, or other farmers will charge more for their milk, or Tesco will have no milk. 🤷♂️
How quickly do most people go bankrupt?
Hint for most firms it's a slow drip effect until some external factor removes the final string that was holding everything together.
Indeed so let the market do its job.
And if Aldi offer better terms than Tesco then farmers will be incentivised to sell to Aldi instead of Tesco.
We don't need the government to step in and tell farmers or businesses what to do.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Sturgeon's nightmare is calling and losing a vote.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Were the reasons positive or negative? Sorry, I'm being dim.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Were the reasons positive or negative? Sorry, I'm being dim.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
We've had 2 referendums since 2014 - and the losers have refused to accept either result.
Suggests referendums in their current form aren't a good solution.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
There's a video out there somewhere of a disgruntled SNP voter asking Sturgeon why a referendum is so important post election when it was well down the agenda pre-election.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Were the reasons positive or negative? Sorry, I'm being dim.
closing hospitals, closing police stations...
Thanks!
But these are local issues and the local council at the time was Labour so Labour took the blame.
Anyway the big news today and I hope everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am - the Prime Minister telling us whether we are going to be allowed to hug our families.
Be still my beating heart...
Haven't seen my parents in 15 months. Expected them to die if they got Covid. Trust me, there are many of us whose heart is absolutely beating at the prospect of a hug from their mum.
Of course. But whether or not that might be safe is not going to be determined by whatever the PM might or might not say this afternoon.
True. They have now had both doses. I have had my first last week. So we're looking for a date I can come down later this month.
Point is though that going to see frail parents in the midst of a pandemic whilst exposed to pox risk on a daily basis through schools would have been bloody stupid.
Absolutely agree, and I don't dismiss the need for government to communicate health advice. However, the absurd 'drama' of today's supposed announcement is more than a little silly.
It is. I don't hold much truck with the argument that government has been too intrusive and assumed too many powers during the pandemic - I think by and large this aspect has been appropriate to the situation - but I'm not keen on how the psychology of it all is working so heavily in their political favour.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
You are just beginning to realise all of this?
It has always been a strand of my thinking. I have many strands.
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
Yes, it was. But it was still loaded in favour of independence regardless of what the EC thinks, and that is proven by recent polls showing 50/50 split on the "independent country?" question but more like 55/45 against, i think, if it was "remain/leave" - not the first time IIRC that the competing questions have been polled - and which to me demonstrates that at least a small number of "yes" voters on the question asked in 2014 perhaps want fuller autonomy but still within the UK, contradictory though that seems in practice. How else do you explain the inconsistency?
Brexit. A lot of poll filling in is done without much thought or care - and there will be some crossover and errors as a result.
Elections are rather different.
I wonder how much thought the Hartlepool voter put in to voting Tory(as interviewed on the BBC). Every single reason he gave was due to Conservative policies and actions over the last 11 years, yet he still supported them. And then the BBC reporter didn't correct him about anything. So much for impartial reporting and something about "...speaking truth...."
Were the reasons positive or negative? Sorry, I'm being dim.
closing hospitals, closing police stations...
And who represented Hartlepool while all these closures happened? 🥀
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
The SNP have promised something that is not in their gift. Just like they can't declare war on Sweden they can't promise, as opposed to ask for, a referendum. It's a UK matter as well as a Scottish one. That too is called democracy.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Sturgeon's nightmare is calling and losing a vote.
Comments
The only people I scoffed at was the Scotch expert in Scotland who thought Alba would get 10% of the list vote and dozens of MSPs.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
What the industry will do is what we saw with Covid - find solutions. There is a major difference though. To fix the Covid supply chain problems they were allowed to drop their legal barriers and co-operate with each other. That dispensation will not be given this time.
Scottish labour are in a difficult position. How can they unite with the tories in Scotland when they oppose them so vehemently in England?
Politically they are much closer to the SNP than the tories.
You attack a straw-man, together with some playground insults, because you can't fathom the complexities of the politics and the nuances.
I pay £1.09 for a 4 pint bottle, that works out at 27.25p per pint which is well below your average.
On the other hand some of my neighbours get milk delivered by a local milkman (who coincidentally knocked on my door this weekend asking if I was interested). The milkman charges 50p per pint.
Not sure why some people choose to pay twice the price in order to get milk dropped off by a milkman, but some people still do. My grandparents do. Its not an idea I can understand at all.
The rest of us will move on.
Elections are rather different.
If economically right-wing people in the South - I'm one of them - get irritated by the policies needed to dominate the North, are they going to defect sufficiently to Labour / LD / Green to allow in a government that will tax them even more, with added wokeness to boot? I kind of doubt it.
As I notice you've been gracious enough to concede, Reform et al. got absolutely nowhere in these elections. But then why should the right split when we can sink our differences over mugs of lefty tears?
@AlastairMeeks
Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary?
10:55 am · 10 May 2021
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/leader/the-prospect-of-food-price-inflation-is-a-worrying-new-development/655685.article
Companies will pay what they need to do in order to get it delivered. Pay enough and people will choose not to take time off now, or re-enter the market, or enter it for the first time.
Electoral fraud is uncommon, especially personation. There might be legitimate concerns around postal votes but that is not relevant to requiring ID at the polling station.
It is rare because it is easy to detect but also because there is not much to be gained unless you can arrange personation on a massive scale.
Those voters are feeling uneasy. When Johnson hits them for six with higher taxes and inflates away their prosperity, things will get much worse.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
2) possible - but there aren't that many of them, most have been working through covid.
3) takes 3 months minimum.
I am not an SNP supporter. But its a special kind of delusion that insists they have not advanced and have no mandate above a weak one. A majority of 8 is the largest ever in Holyrood for independence.
The SNP failed to match the majority they got in 2011 before indyref2 and should not get indyref2 until a generation has elapsed since 2014.
Yes that will infuriate SNP, Green list and Alba voters but who cares, 99% of them would vote Yes whether indyref2 was held tomorrow or in 5 or 10 years time.
Appeasing the Nationalists however means we will get neverendums with the SNP calling independence referendums whenever they want, allowed by a weak UK government, until they get the Yes result they want
Simplicity wins out every time & approval voting is the simplest system that fixes the worst sins of FPTP. The nerds can keep their ranked votes with Condorcet counts & Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping to eliminate ties - Approval voting is where it’s at.
The Tories led Scotland out of the EU single market, now the SNP want to drive Scotland out of the UK single market.
It's like saying the solution to losing one leg in an accident is to chop off the other one.
Whether SLabour are capable of driving that argument I'm not sure, but Asas seems as capable as anyone else.
They could put CCTV in polling stations, for that matter, to help Plod if they were so worried about personation.
Were coming up to the fifth anniversary of voting to leave the EU, we left over a year ago, we left transition over four months ago - and you're bitching and moaning about a couple of months to train up people?
JFDI. Just f###ing do it.
When the polling for independence + polling for doing it in a foreseeable timetable regularly tops 59/60% it will be time to think again. I can't see it myself.
Does Nicola sound like someone who is passionate to be let of the leash of covid to have a referendum absolutely the first moment she can because she is so keen and so sure she will win handsomely?
No, I don't think so either. That answers it.
It is only if Johnson says "yeah ok, when do you want to hold it" that nippy is in trouble.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
‘... But photo ID for voting - in a polity that doesn't distribute photo ID to everyone - is shameless.’
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1391701573718347778?s=21
I suspect the independence majority will be bigger than 8 next time round.
It is also important to make sure that everyone has access to appropriate ID. Passports and driver’s licenses are obvious but we should also make sure that those who don’t have those have an alternative.
We would at least find out.
Just so I can annoy everyone, I should add that two and a bit years in Hong Kong have changed my views on ID cards in general. Having been a die hard agnostic, I am now firmly in favour.
having now spent years flying round Europe (and dealing with Identification in places like Banks) there is a lot of convenience in having a single piece of card that confirms the person is who they claim to be.
PS Also Tories/UKIP. Not sure about SLD, probably because they count as a wee party anyway in most of Scotland and a grown up party in their homelands.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
I recall during Salmondgate you had one of your rare foray’s into objectivity and did wonder if the avalanche of opinion from the Speccie, Tele, Andra Neil, Dave Davis etc that Sturgeon was a lying, vindictive cow and Salmond the Dreyfus du jour might lack a little balance. More of that please.
They hark back to the days when labour send 40-odd fiery MPs south every five years. It ain't coming back.
Banning indyref2 for at least 5 years however ensures 0% chance of Scottish independence for that timeframe and it would not change the independence voting intention one iota as the vast majority of No voters oppose allowing indyref2 for at least a generation anyway, only most Yes voters want one now
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
By all accounts Aldi have a pretty good reputation for treating their suppliers well & I’m told they have significantly better payment terms than the big UK supermarkets. Producers should be using Aldi’s terms as a stick to beat Tesco with.
Diane Abbott urged beleaguered Labour leader Keir Starmer to campaign to bring back freedom of movement between the UK and the EU today
Hint for most firms it's a slow drip effect until some external factor removes the final string that was holding everything together.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
And if Aldi offer better terms than Tesco then farmers will be incentivised to sell to Aldi instead of Tesco.
We don't need the government to step in and tell farmers or businesses what to do.
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-english-champions-league-final-set-to-move-from-istanbul-to-wembley-qw0mhcdlh
I'm fine with more fans but hell no to no quarantine.
Suggests referendums in their current form aren't a good solution.