Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s GE17 performance is misleading as a tactical voting guid

123468

Comments

  • You are forgetting about EVFEL. At the moment it is the dog that hasn't barked as the Cons are running the UK and had a majority of 103 in England at the last election.
    If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
  • At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.

    Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
    There is one flaw in your argument - many (possibly a majority) of people in the NE dont particularly consider SNP politicians in Edinburgh as "we".
  • Pierrot said:

    Is that to do with the St Andrews university donariat?
    Well it is very much to do with St Andrews, but I'm not sure I know what a donariat is! NE Fife is basically St Andrews, farming country, and some other small towns and fishing villages, traditionally Liberal and Tory leaning. The rest of Fife was pit villages and industrial towns, very working class and traditionally solid Labour with Communism at the edges. Culturally the two areas were as distinct as it is possible to imagine. The fact that the SNP has won seats in both areas is a testament to their political genius.
  • marke09 said:

    Latest polling in Scotland:

    25 point lead for the SNP

    Conservative 22%
    Labour 10%
    Lib Dem 8%
    SNP 47%
    Brexit Party 5%
    Green 8%

    YouGov/The Times/Sky 5-6 Nov

    SLDs sub-10%? Don’t believe it. Their supporters are notoriously shy.

    SLab 10%? Almost believable. Maybe low teens?

    SCon 22%? A bit low. Maybe 25%.

    SNP 47%? Maybe, but if the Greens put up lots of candidates, you can knock at least 3 points off that.

    Still, to be 40%+ twelve years into Government, in an FPTP election: I’m chuffed.
  • SLDs sub-10%? Don’t believe it. Their supporters are notoriously shy.

    SLab 10%? Almost believable. Maybe low teens?

    SCon 22%? A bit low. Maybe 25%.

    SNP 47%? Maybe, but if the Greens put up lots of candidates, you can knock at least 3 points off that.

    Still, to be 40%+ twelve years into Government, in an FPTP election: I’m chuffed.
    The distribution of that vote will be what matters. SNP landslides in the west and central belt as SLAB collapses turns SNP marginals into comfortable holds, But doesnt win many seats elsewhere. Meanwhile in the unionist parts of Scotland, the east, NE, borders, Edinburgh etc, the SNP loses votes.
  • If the Tories win a majority thanks to England and Wales then what path do Scots here see towards an independence referendum?

    I'd imagine if the SNP get 50+ seats then it'd be difficult not to recognise that and see a referendum, but I'm biased being a Tory that actually does want a second [and successful] independence referendum.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    Nigelb said:

    Except that under English law, priest-penitent privilege does not, I think, apply.
    @TSE was presenting the idea of confidentiality between a professional and their client (let’s describe the priest-communicant relationship as that for the moment) as something unprecedented which the Catholic Church was asking for itself as some sort of special privilege whereas it is something which is well-known to English law.

    Whether it should be extended to priests - and not just Catholic priests but all clergy from all religions - is another matter, of course. But let’s not pretend that this isn’t already an issue in other professions and sectors.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,682
    Listening to the Sturgeon campaign launch. She seems to think that she knows what everybody else thinks better than they do themselves.

    Including repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Medicine Costs if Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1192774785044013056
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,522
    Nigelb said:

    Talking to older insurance brokers, there were those who maintained a similar attitude towards clients who had made probably fraudulent claims.
    Not so much, these days.
    The usual lies would be about client identity (eg a person with a bad credit record would apply for a mortgage in a different name) or about the amount of money changing hands (which would be different to the figure shown on the contract and transfer deed).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited November 2019

    At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.

    Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
    I would imagine the argument 'you've seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should: Scottish nationalism is based just as much on a romantic fantasy as leaving the EU is.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341
    alb1on said:

    And that just reinforces how much of a failure it is by Labour to have put up a weak candidate such as Milani, rather than get behind a strong independent with the other parties. It is highly likely that some of the other parties votes that were squeezed in 2017 will return to their previous home (and rather more of them than had Labour put up a strong candidate). In these circumstances it is, regrettably, hard to see how Johnson can lose Uxbridge.
    The demographics there are changing rapidly just as they did in nearby Harrow.
    I think Boris will be alright this time but he might need somewhere safer in the long run.
  • Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”

    Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.

    Plus, if they win IndyRef2 in 2020, there's always the risk of a Unionist backlash at the 2021 Holyrood elections depriving the Nationalists of a majority at Holyrood. That would be fun.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,473
    Sean_F said:

    It probably doesn't lose Labour votes, but it reinforces the determination among Lib Dems not to switch to Labour, and confirms Conservative and TBP voters in their determination to back their respective parties.

    So long as that remains the case, there is no path to victory for the Labour Party.
    I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
  • I would imagine the argument 'you seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should.
    Coming from the people who are entirely responsible for getting us into this current disastrous difficulty would certainly be piquant. I'm sure you'll give it a bash though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,805

    It is why I could never enter politics. I could never sit there and spout party lines that are obvious trash. I am not perfect, but at least I have enough self-respect not to indulge in that kind of ...... junk? hypocrisy? farce?

    I am not sure what the correct word is that describes that.
    I understand the need for 'party lines', and while a slavish adherence to them would be utterly beyond me as well, it would be hard for parties to promote policies without them.
    In this case, though, the line is demonstrated as being utterly devoid of meaning, the minister appears to accept that (certainly doesn't contest it)... and then goes on spouting the line.

    It is engaging in manifest contempt for the electorate. Though to be fair, it is her leader who has set the standard for that.
  • Coming from the people who are entirely responsible for getting us into this current disastrous difficulty would certainly be piquant. I'm sure you'll give it a bash though.
    Following SNP logic even if you win an independence referendum, independence should still be blocked if you can't get a deal with Westminster.
  • What a fecking dump.

    An Oxford College has launched an investigation after a porter asked a black alumnus if he used to “rob the place”.

    St John’s College, which was founded in 1555, said it is prepared to “take action” after a recent graduate described the exchange on Twitter.

    He said: “I went to my old college in Oxford yesterday to look round again. At the door I explained to the porter that I used to go there & he replied “What did you do, clean the windows? Rob it?””


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/07/oxford-college-launches-probe-porter-asked-black-alumnus-used/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,805
    Cyclefree said:

    @TSE was presenting the idea of confidentiality between a professional and their client (let’s describe the priest-communicant relationship as that for the moment) as something unprecedented which the Catholic Church was asking for itself as some sort of special privilege whereas it is something which is well-known to English law.

    Whether it should be extended to priests - and not just Catholic priests but all clergy from all religions - is another matter, of course. But let’s not pretend that this isn’t already an issue in other professions and sectors.
    Which is an entirely fair point for you to make.

    Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
  • alb1on said:

    I agree. And I trust you feel similarly about the Conservatives for readmitting the likes of Griffiths and Elphicke simply for the convenience of their vote (which led to the embarrassment of having to suspend Elphicke again when he was charged).
    My feelings about the Conservatives are a bit different because I never expected them to take complaints of Islamophobia seriously enough, so I don't have the same feeling of disappointment.

    On the allegations of sexual harassment, those are a much bigger problem in some ways because, for example, the reluctance of jurors to convict in rape trials demonstrates that this is a wider problem in society than purely party discipline.

    I was never going to vote Tory, but I did vote Labour for the regional list at HE2016.
  • Nigelb said:



    Which is an entirely fair point for you to make.

    Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.

    My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,512



    If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.

    We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
  • SLDs sub-10%? Don’t believe it. Their supporters are notoriously shy.

    SLab 10%? Almost believable. Maybe low teens?

    SCon 22%? A bit low. Maybe 25%.

    SNP 47%? Maybe, but if the Greens put up lots of candidates, you can knock at least 3 points off that.

    Still, to be 40%+ twelve years into Government, in an FPTP election: I’m chuffed.
    SUBSAMPLE KLAXON
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,357
    edited November 2019
    The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1192778822569070592?s=20
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    Roger said:

    I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
    Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust.
    Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
  • If the Tories win a majority thanks to England and Wales then what path do Scots here see towards an independence referendum?

    I'd imagine if the SNP get 50+ seats then it'd be difficult not to recognise that and see a referendum, but I'm biased being a Tory that actually does want a second [and successful] independence referendum.

    Is The decision not to grant a section 30 notice subject to Judicial Review?

    If it was refused at a time which seemed manifestly unreasonable - say after a clear victory in HE2021 with another referendum as a manifesto commitment - then you might think a court could be willing to rule it as unreasonable.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651

    My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
    Of course they do.

    I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,203
    Fishing said:

    We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
    An English Parliament is a great idea if you want to dissolve the Union. The weight of it would set up an mutually destructive dynamic between “UK” and “England”.

    Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341

    The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1192778822569070592?s=20

    I don't get the Tory line on the 2nd IndyRef. How is any government supposed to deny a 2nd ref if the people of Scotland vote for it?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,847

    The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1192778822569070592?s=20

    It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    edited November 2019
    Xtrain said:

    I don't get the Tory line on the 2nd IndyRef. How is any government supposed to deny a 2nd ref if the people of Scotland vote for it?
    The Spanish government manages to ignore the Catalan Government's requests for an Independence referendum and Boris would follow suit, certainly until the 2021 Holyrood elections
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,473
    edited November 2019
    Anyone know who is financing and organising the defection of John Woodcock and Ian Austin? The posters the low loaders and the press conference were put together by someone. Defections are usually just a group of suppoerters being drowned out by some traffic. Was it the Tories or one of the Brexit groups?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    148grss said:

    On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?

    A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,847
    edited November 2019

    I would imagine the argument 'you've seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should: Scottish nationalism is based just as much on a romantic fantasy as leaving the EU is.
    How they talk about 'Brexit chaos' with a straight face is quite remarkable.
  • 148grss said:

    Are there any floating voters this will change minds of? I'd say no.

    For Remain tactical voters, they see staying in the EU as a way of keeping Scotland in the Union, so tactically voting Labour for the 2 refs isn't a problem for them.

    For Labour Leavers, how much do they care about Scottish independence or even Scottish power over Labour? They care about the NHS, Education and other things much more. In fact, SNP are probably the kind of moderate lefties they would agree with policy wise if it wasn't for the fact they were Scotch Nats.

    For everyone who already hates Labour... They already hate Labour and weren't voting for them anyway.

    If anything, it looks increasingly likely that Sturgeon will be seen as a moderating force on Labour, allowing sceptical English voters a chance to vote Labour whilst hoping the SNP (and possibly the LDs) will moderate Lab or even force Corbyn out behind the scenes for someone more moderate.

    Some people hate the Nats, sure, but I don't think as many people who are already considering voting Labour hate them more than the Tories or Brexit.
    Don’t talk common sense on PB. The wee dears prefer their fantasy world.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,203
    There is no legal or indeed moral obligation for the UK government to grant Scotland an independence referendum, even if the SNP were to achieve a clean sweep of Scottish seats.

    The lesson of the last few years is that referendums should be validatory rather than interrogative. I don’t think a Sindy referendum is justified unless there is a persistent and clear majority support for independence. 60, 65%
  • BBC to host Johnson v Corbyn debate just 6 days before the General Election.

    That will be quite important I imagine.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    HYUFD said:

    A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
    So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    Alistair said:

    Is that a scotland only poll?

    That's Kaboom territory.

    That is annihilatory LD don't even win Fife NE, Conservatives down to 3 seats level.
    No that is SNP still below 2015 pre Brexit levels and a subsample
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,473
    midwinter said:

    Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust.
    Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
    What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    Cyclefree said:

    Of course they do.

    I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
    Some of the legal profession were committing their own crimes. It is a disgrace that Janner is being whitewashed when Sir Richard Henriques reviewed the case and concluded he should have been charged in the original investigation in the late 80s/early 90s, and Mick Creedon, subsequently Chief Constable of Derbyshire, stated in 2014 that he was ordered not to arrest Janner during that investigation. The Carl Beech fiasco has nothing to do with the wider evidence against Janner which was reviewed by Henriques.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1192778822569070592?s=20

    Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.

    Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    148grss said:

    So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
    It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,522
    Cyclefree said:

    Of course they do.

    I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
    Going back twenty years, I can remember quite a lot of members of the profession complaining it was none of their business to check whether client funds were coming from legitimate sources, or whether their clients were giving a true identity.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,835

    An English Parliament is a great idea if you want to dissolve the Union. The weight of it would set up an mutually destructive dynamic between “UK” and “England”.

    Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
    Except that the Labour Party pushed that approach and there seemed very little appetite for it.
    There is a dissertation to be written on what the structure of sub-national government should be, taking into account factors such as efficiency, responsiveness, local support. In fact I once wrote one. Conclusion: there doesn't seem to be one obviously good answer...
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    edited November 2019
    TudorRose said:

    It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
    PC isn't really an independence party in practice like the SNP, though. They are more language nationalists and want a revitalisation of Welsh culture. I have many family members in the South of Wales who are PC voters (and one councillor) and they don't care about independence; they just are Welsh speakers first and care about their language and history.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    148grss said:

    So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
    Far from it, it will win Unionist votes in Scotland to keep out Corbyn and Sturgeon
  • Isn't that what caused the 'Beast from the East'? Unnaturally warm weather in the Arctic pushing terrible weather South?
  • eekeek Posts: 29,741
    148grss said:

    Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.

    Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
    That completely backfires - with Sturgeon in control the more insane Labour policies would be moderated.
  • TudorRose said:

    It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
    Be more meaningful if anyone at all took the Welsh separatists seriously.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124

    There is no legal or indeed moral obligation for the UK government to grant Scotland an independence referendum, even if the SNP were to achieve a clean sweep of Scottish seats.

    The lesson of the last few years is that referendums should be validatory rather than interrogative. I don’t think a Sindy referendum is justified unless there is a persistent and clear majority support for independence. 60, 65%

    Indeed, Westminster could block indyref2 quite legally for ever and until the SNP get 55%+ of the vote in Scotland then agreed there is no clear demand for it anyway
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
    Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,357
    edited November 2019
    148grss said:

    Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.

    Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
    Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.

    I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Be more meaningful if anyone at all took the Welsh separatists seriously.
    Of course, Plaid Cymru did better than the SNP in the first set of devolved elections in 1999.

    PC responded by deposing their excellent & successful leader.

    Since then, the SNP have done everything right, and Plaid Cymru everything wrong.
  • 3 million years? Terrifying.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    eek said:

    That completely backfires - with Sturgeon in control the more insane Labour policies would be moderated.
    Disagree, certainly the majority of Brits can't stand Sturgeon or Corbyn, to place them both together greatens the impact. Sturgeon is also unpopular with the working class Labour voters the Tories are trying to win round.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,847
    148grss said:

    Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.

    Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
    Forgive me, but this is quite a muddled argument, and I can't discern anything here that cuts through. Every point you make can be made the other way, more effectively. Why the opposition to Brexit if independence is such a good thing? It's power moving closer to the people after all.

    The Tories are setting themselves up as the unionist option on Scotland. That appeals to a lot of people, especially within the confines of a polling booth where they are not being hectored by the local nat blowhard. It's no more complex than that.
  • Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
    Easily the best speaker of all the UK party leaders.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,522

    Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
    I think more people would prefer either Johnson or Corbyn.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,678


    It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.

    I'm fine with it, for the reasons outlined by others. I've never met an English Labour voter who was scared by Sturgeon, and quite a few who think she's rather good.

    Also, how does it fit with the "Corbyn is Stalin" line? One can be a horrible dictator given to murdering enemies. One can be a pathetic weakling in the pocket of regional nationalists. It's quite hard to be both.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,805

    My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
    It's a point.
    Another one would be that the legal profession has not been entirely exemplary in policing the conduct of its own members either.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nicola Sturgeon polls terribly in the rest of the UK.

    Falling back to good old Crosby xenophobia is a winner here.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860

    Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.

    I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
    It’s one of the big dichotomies in the Brexit movement. The elite are almost all British nationalists but your average English Brexiteer doesn’t care about the union.
  • This twitter feed on climate is truly terrifying:

    https://twitter.com/KrVaSt
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,847

    Easily the best speaker of all the UK party leaders.
    She is a very talented politician. It is a shame that her horizons end at Dumfries and Galloway.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,805

    Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
    Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
  • Lord Ashcroft has done some focus groups in 3 LD target seats:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/11/lord-ashcroft-my-focus-groups-in-three-heavily-remain-voting-liberal-democrat-targets.html

    Not all that promising for the LDs.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,847

    I'm fine with it, for the reasons outlined by others. I've never met an English Labour voter who was scared by Sturgeon, and quite a few who think she's rather good.

    Also, how does it fit with the "Corbyn is Stalin" line? One can be a horrible dictator given to murdering enemies. One can be a pathetic weakling in the pocket of regional nationalists. It's quite hard to be both.
    But if anyone could achieve it...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,203
    Cookie said:

    Except that the Labour Party pushed that approach and there seemed very little appetite for it.
    There is a dissertation to be written on what the structure of sub-national government should be, taking into account factors such as efficiency, responsiveness, local support. In fact I once wrote one. Conclusion: there doesn't seem to be one obviously good answer...
    Labour’s Assemblies seemed like expensive talking shops, though I am discounting “local support”, for the moment, as there is no clear support for any particular model - including the present one.

    The German system works pretty well, I think.
    Something akin to that - with Yorkshire et al as Lander - is what I have in mind.

    But don’t get us started on that those sub-national entities are. Yorkshire is perhaps the only one which people can agree on and even then one has the “Cleveland conundrum”.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    Nigelb said:

    Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
    Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,805

    This twitter feed on climate is truly terrifying:

    https://twitter.com/KrVaSt

    Climate change - and our grossly inadequate response to it - is frightening.
    It is not an insoluble problem, but the global effort to solve it isn't there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124

    Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.

    I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
    Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,955

    Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
    Instead, we have a Boris.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    edited November 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
    You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124

    Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
    Gorbachev is respected abroad but hated in Russia now, hence why Putin is so popular.

    Russian nationalism was the result of the breakup of the USSR.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124

    You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
    No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.

    The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Roger said:



    What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.

    It's probably just because it's so hard to pick one, but for me it's the clear evidence that his team have been actively interfering in disciplinary cases involving allegations of antisemitism, exclusively to downgrade punishments.

    A close second would be all the terrorists and racists he's shared platforms with over the years, and trying to justify this by claiming it's important to talk to both sides. It's perfectly clear he only talks to one side, and has never challenged any of the abhorrent views of some of the people he's associated with.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,678
    Brom said:



    Disagree, certainly the majority of Brits can't stand Sturgeon or Corbyn, to place them both together greatens the impact. Sturgeon is also unpopular with the working class Labour voters the Tories are trying to win round.

    Evidence? I don't think most working-class Labour English voters have a strong view about her either way.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,861
    edited November 2019

    It isn't really a conundrum. "Yorkshire" and "Durham" are centuries old constructs. The idea that the Tees is a regional barrier might have been true when Thormod the Viking built his farmstead in present day Thornaby-on-Tees, but I can tell you that today Thornaby is linked to Stockton, not York.

    No matter how many times his eminence the Mayor of Thornaby demands Thornaby "rejoin Yorkshire" it doesn't muster up a reality where all that empty farmland and hills to our south is where our focus should be instead of in the conurbation we are now part of.

    Anyway, if we're creating Lander don't we go for bigger regions? How about pre-invasion Northumbria on one side o'th' Pennines and Strathclyde on the other...

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Lord Ashcroft has done some focus groups in 3 LD target seats:
    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/11/lord-ashcroft-my-focus-groups-in-three-heavily-remain-voting-liberal-democrat-targets.html
    Not all that promising for the LDs.

    On a recent visit to Cambridge, I did some forays to the heavily Labour (& Brexity) wards in the East of the City. Cherry Hinton is absolutely festooned in Vote Labour placards.

    I think the LibDems view of the city -- as they jaunt back to the old College for a formal -- is restricted to the Northern wards (which they will win handsomely).

    Labour will hold Cambridge.

    Dan Z's majority will be down, but I don't think it will be close. Labour by at least 6k
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    "Debate" as in a Referendum?

    Or just a natter between those two in a TV studio?
  • You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
    Wasn't that mainly out of expediency though? Chaos and division within the EU would give them a cloak for the failings for Brexit.
  • HYUFD said:

    No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.

    The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
    Speaking as a Brexit voter that takes their side I'm calling out your comment as bollocks. I take their side and the side of Yes in Scotland. You can speak for yourself, not me and not every other of the 17.4 million Brexit voters.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    Roger said:

    What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
    Three things off the top of my head:-

    1. Saying that British Jews needed to be taught irony.
    2. Inviting a convicted anti-semite - Raed Salah - to Parliament saying that his voice needed to be heard.
    3. Travelling to meet President Assad with a group which specifically denies the Holocaust.

    The first caused great dismay amongst Jews here - some anyway.

    On 2 and 3, I do not see how it is defensible to say that the voice of anti-semites should be heard in our Parliament as a guest or to choose to travel with Holocaust deniers. At the very least you are giving them your imprimatur as an MP. It might - just about - be defensible if you condemned those views but there is no record of Corbyn having done so with regard to either of those.

    Read Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" and Richard Evans on the Irving libel trial to understand why it is important not to given Holocaust deniers any space at all.

    Now to be absolutely clear I don't know whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic or whether he simply allows others to express their anti-semitism. But the latter is very poor in a leader, especially one who claims to be anti-racist. He can be rightly called out on that.

    If he is the lifelong anti-racist that he claims, it is most odd that under his leadership this stench has grown and not been removed; that so many people have felt able to utter vile anti-Jewish comments and that his party is facing a formal investigation on this issue by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. It is all very unfortunate and for someone who is so in control of his party and so loved / admired by the members it is, well, a bit odd that he has not been able to impose his will and ensure that anti-semitism is removed from his party. After all, he has said a number of times that they don't do it in his name. So why do they keep doing it? Do they know better than him? Do they look at his record over the years instead? Or do they simply ignore him - and apparently only on this issue? It is very curious. Perhaps the actions don't match the words. Perhaps the words are just for show. Who can say?

    Or maybe we should apply Ockham's Rule instead?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924

    Shades of 2005 - Michael Howard was depicted as Shylock in a Labour campaign poster.
    Thats wrong kind of Antisemitism as it came from Campbell
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    edited November 2019

    Speaking as a Brexit voter that takes their side I'm calling out your comment as bollocks. I take their side and the side of Yes in Scotland. You can speak for yourself, not me and not every other of the 17.4 million Brexit voters.
    You are not a Tory or even a conservative really but a libertarian like Tyndall.

    Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 correctly and I am fully behind him
  • Can someone better than me at this have a go.

    https://twitter.com/edmundedgar/status/1192792093657198592
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.

    The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
    On average there has been 1 independence referendum every 300 or so years.

    If we have another next year its one every 150 years. Still much less than once in a generation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,197

    Well it is very much to do with St Andrews, but I'm not sure I know what a donariat is! NE Fife is basically St Andrews, farming country, and some other small towns and fishing villages, traditionally Liberal and Tory leaning. The rest of Fife was pit villages and industrial towns, very working class and traditionally solid Labour with Communism at the edges. Culturally the two areas were as distinct as it is possible to imagine. The fact that the SNP has won seats in both areas is a testament to their political genius.
    Not sure I would completely agree with that. I worked in Cupar in NE Fife for about 15 years and we had offices in St Andrews and Anstruther as well. Cupar is not what it was and the demise of both the Council and the Court has hit it hard but it is still a reasonably prosperous town with a good selection of shops. In the Neuk of Fife there are some spectacularly beautiful villages which regrettably hide considerable poverty mainly caused by the collapse of the fishing industry. St Andrews is probably more dominant economically than it was and the University is certainly more dominant in the town but there is a lot more to NE Fife than that.

    When I first went there in the 90s it was pretty Tory but Ming built an empire whilst MP and the Lib Dems had the Council latterly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124

    On a recent visit to Cambridge, I did some forays to the heavily Labour (& Brexity) wards in the East of the City. Cherry Hinton is absolutely festooned in Vote Labour placards.

    I think the LibDems view of the city -- as they jaunt back to the old College for a formal -- is restricted to the Northern wards (which they will win handsomely).

    Labour will hold Cambridge.

    Dan Z's majority will be down, but I don't think it will be close. Labour by at least 6k
    LDs will gain Cambridge in current swing in most polls and middle class voters have higher turnout
  • HYUFD said:

    You are not a Tory or even a conservative really but a libertarian like Tyndall.

    Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 correctly and I am fully behind him
    Yes I am a libertarian as are many Tories, we make up a considerable chunk of the party. You didn't say lowercase c conservative you said Brexit voters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,124
    Alistair said:

    On average there has been 1 independence referendum every 300 or so years.

    If we have another next year its one every 150 years. Still much less than once in a generation.
    No the next generation after 2014 would be about 2030 at the earliest.

    Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd independence referendum in 1995 after the first in 1980
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,473
    midwinter said:

    Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust.
    Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
    Extraordinary how many people feel disgust without the ability to articulate what disgusts tham. Incidentally if it's disgust and not being scared then I'd add names like Theresa May for her immigrant go home buses and Pritti Patel for her views on execution and Travellers

  • Cyclefree said:

    Three things off the top of my head:-

    1. Saying that British Jews needed to be taught irony.
    2. Inviting a convicted anti-semite - Raed Salah - to Parliament saying that his voice needed to be heard.
    3. Travelling to meet President Assad with a group which specifically denies the Holocaust.

    The first caused great dismay amongst Jews here - some anyway.

    On 2 and 3, I do not see how it is defensible to say that the voice of anti-semites should be heard in our Parliament as a guest or to choose to travel with Holocaust deniers. At the very least you are giving them your imprimatur as an MP. It might - just about - be defensible if you condemned those views but there is no record of Corbyn having done so with regard to either of those.

    Read Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" and Richard Evans on the Irving libel trial to understand why it is important not to given Holocaust deniers any space at all.

    Now to be absolutely clear I don't know whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic or whether he simply allows others to express their anti-semitism. But the latter is very poor in a leader, especially one who claims to be anti-racist. He can be rightly called out on that.

    If he is the lifelong anti-racist that he claims, it is most odd that under his leadership this stench has grown and not been removed; that so many people have felt able to utter vile anti-Jewish comments and that his party is facing a formal investigation on this issue by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. It is all very unfortunate and for someone who is so in control of his party and so loved / admired by the members it is, well, a bit odd that he has not been able to impose his will and ensure that anti-semitism is removed from his party. After all, he has said a number of times that they don't do it in his name. So why do they keep doing it? Do they know better than him? Do they look at his record over the years instead? Or do they simply ignore him - and apparently only on this issue? It is very curious. Perhaps the actions don't match the words. Perhaps the words are just for show. Who can say?

    Or maybe we should apply Ockham's Rule instead?
    +1
This discussion has been closed.