politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now in Scotland we are getting threats of de-selection for pro
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now in Scotland we are getting threats of de-selection for pro-Brexit CON MPs
The paper, the National, it should be pointed out is a strong supporter of the SNP but having said that this does raise a real issue in the one part of the UK where the Tories had real success at GE2017.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
One of the things that always annoys the living daylights out of me is the constant repetition of the view that we only have hand car washes because of immigration. And that, if we didn't have immigration, then we'd have sensible machine car washes and productivity was higher.
This would be a plausible answer were it not for the fact that big industrial car wash makers - companies like Coleman Hanna - have reported falling sales in all geographical regions.
If it were simply cheap immigrants making industrial car washes unattractive, then you would expect that places with few immigrants would see demand rise, while those with many would see it fall. On the contrary, there has been widespread sales declines because... ummm... people quite like having their car cleaned by actual people.
I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1047131798373904385
Mr Yamaguchi is notable as having survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, even travelling back to his hometown and returning to work three days later despite serious burns on much of his body. Indeed, he was at work being berated by a supervisor as 'crazy' for claiming that a single bomb could destroy a whole city when the factory they were stood in, in Nagasaki, was suddenly destroyed.
It is believed that hundreds of people survived both bombs, 165 were brought together for a documentary in 2006, but Mr Yamaguchi remains the only person formally recognised as such by the Japanese government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
Also, in Aberdeen following the 2017 local elections, 9 labour councillors allied with the 11 conservatives to keep out the 19 strong SNP group and were suspended by their party. The fallout from that will be ugly.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
Personally I think this is the tricky part of what Corbyn is looking to do. Hold a supporting coalition together from both remain and leave supporters, and improve in Scotland. It's like 3D chess and I cannot see how Corbyn wins. What he really needs is for Brexit to go through whilst looking like he is both honouring the result of the referendum, and taking steps to reverse it, and then to hone a position to maximise the left of centre vote that is more compelling than Theresa May saying she wanted a huge majority to ram through Brexit, whilst also alienating the core Pensioner vote with unpopular proposals on social care. If he can do that he deserves to be Prime Minister.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
If you achieve a bespoke settlement that does the latter, the first group will think Brexit was pointless, and if you achieve the former, the second group will think Brexit was a mistake.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1080953273799069696?s=21
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-did-nancy-pelosis-new-face
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1081057888595050496?s=19
"death cult Brexit."
nice.
I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable.
As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.
Labour in Scotland needs to be a semi-independent party like the Scottish Tories, their problem is that they lack a leader up there with any semblance of umph and the cult won't allow any dissent against Jezbollah.
According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.
However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or even Plaid on a case by case basis. Moreover, it would be taken as a sign they're in the wane. It might even lead to a leadership challenge, or to the loss of Blackford's seat forcing an election. So they can't really demand anything, or if they do, he can reject it.
If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.
The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.
So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/
I presume that they have found the members for YouGov to poll for them?
The SNP shed masses of Brexiters between 2015 and 2017, a over a third of 2015 snp voters were Brexiteers, only a quarter of 2017 snp voters were Brexiters.
I think the unionist vote outweighs the Brexit vote round Aberdeen way so plenty of Remain Lab types will vote for absolute Roaster Ross to keep out the hated SNP.
But, I have no clue.
Here's a handy guide.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html
For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
More likely that those in marginals at least will get their desserts at the next election.
What this does do however, is destroy the moral high ground Tories would otherwise claim when Momentum backed Labour candidates start to oust moderate sitting MPs. Both parties are clearly as bad as each other.
https://tinyurl.com/yb7f6cvy
To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
"So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment."
I've already suggested we fence off Beachy Head to prevent hysterical Remainers throwing themselves off. I'm just a soft shite really.
All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-matt-hancock-refuses-to-rule-out-deaths-from-medicine-shortages-in-uk-crashes-out-of-a3990706.html
So most Tory members still likely prefer May's Deal to Remain but No Deal to both, the country as a whole though temds to prefer May's Deal to No Deal and has more support for Remain.
Given a majority of Labour members back EUref2 and Remain and a majority of Tory members back No Deal neither May and Corbyn represent their members on Brexit and are actually probably closer to voters as a whole as a result
I refuse to rule out that I could drop dead tomorrow, or the day after as that's January 6th. That doesn't mean there's a causal link.
Look upon Brexit as an adventure, strap yourself in for a bumpy ride. Ignore the snowflakes.
They are, of course, hugely over-represented on PB (as, to be fair, are members of other parties).
Why do you care so little about avoidable deaths that occur now when we are in the EU and care so little about the 1 m who are currently unemployed.