politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The end of the honeymoon

OllyT said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson.
And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.

The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.

That’s the thing.

The media keeps saying he’s the de facto PM. But he’s not. He’s an influential adviser but not the PM.

Surely the perception is what counts and the whole Cummings affair has cemented the notion that he his the one actually running things. I don't believe it is very wide of the mark either.

Johnson was born into privilege and has sailed through life with a combination of charm, lies, waffle and blagging. He has never done a hard day's work hard in his life. He's just the front man.

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

algarkirk said:

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.

To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.

If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.

Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.

Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.

Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?

1) Labour cannot win in England.
2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win.
3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Ignore HYUFD.

He is a zealot with no common sense

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Alistair said:

I am very keen not to lose money betting on the Presidential election again. Especially after I had done so welling backing trump to win the nomination in 2016.

I want to hear solid reasons as to why Trump can win beyond "the polls are wrong" without any evidence as to why the polls are wrong.

Every incidence of left wingers doing something in America is immediatly greeted with the notion that it playing I to his hands, every poll showing that actually the action is popular with the American public is dismissed.

But the polls weren't really wrong in 2016, they got the voteshares pretty much spot on didn't they, nationally?

Biden is so much further ahead, they'd have to do worse than 2016 (where they were mostly right as I said) and be so wrong as to probably be useless in future. Can't see it myself.

I think we're all in a state of "well it happened last time, it will surely happen again". Putting my objective (as much as possible) hat on, Trump simply does not have the advantages he had last time.

Yes. Forget all this "people are being emotional" bullshit, the bias is working the other way, both on here and in the betting markets. Because there was a shock last time people are treating the best objective data - the polling - as if it's more likely to be way out than broadly right. Exactly the same occurred - and for the same reason - with our general election. There the evidence from the get-go was for a big Tory win and this remained the case right until polling day. Yet you could back this outcome even on the eve of the vote at generous odds against. It happened of course. Big Tory win. The polls were right. Back to WH2020. If you were to decant every drop of emotion you had into a jar and focus on pricing up a Trump win in the way a cold calculating killer does as he plots his next hit - think Edward Fox in The Jackal - going purely by the hard evidence available in the public domain, you would get in Betfair parlance 4.25. I know this because I have done it. 4.25 - this is what Trump should be right now. But he's 2.84. Far too short. Too short in the market and (driven by the same bias) too many PB posters still giving him a great chance and expecting it to be close.

Have you priced in the effect of Trump working to prevent the election from being free and fair?

Charles said:

algarkirk said:

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.

To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.

If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.

Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.

Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.

Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?

1) Labour cannot win in England.
2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win.
3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.

Labour evolves to come up with a proposition that can secure a majority of English seats

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it

You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

You speak for yourself and at times make a complete 'horlicks' of it

You do not own the party and you do not tell me who to vote for

The manifesto the party won on owns the party and that was clear, no indyref2 for a generation.

You can whinge as much as you like about it but that was the platform the Tories won on and it will be respected

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

So if you were a pro-independence Scot you'd accept the situation and turn your thoughts elsewhere, reasonably happily?

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

You are making some sweeping assumptions here.

If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.

A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.

Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come

Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do
hope you are correct.

I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.

Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.

Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market

I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.

Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone

You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.

I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.

I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.

Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump's wading into the culture wars - defending statues and monuments:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53284607


Personally, I think there's some mileage in this for him. The reaction in the USA has been far worse than here.

This is pure Stephen Miller, and it will go down well with his core but it will not get him the suburban college educated whites that are slipping away from him.

They are gone. It's the white male non-college he needs to hold onto in massive numbers (and these are slipping).

I think there's so much confirmation bias on Trump on this site.

Doesn't help that one or two posters have taken it upon themselves to attack anyone who suggests otherwise (you know who you are) too.

This is a betting site.

Agreed, apparently saying that Trump might not lose is the same as saying you support him to some posters.

Agreed 100%

I despise Trump and hope he loses but I would not risk a single penny on this market this year. My thoughts are too strong to be objective - and the site I come to for objective analysis isn't objective either.

We are not Americans. The attempts to make contrasts between American and British politics or thinking that Americans must get rid of Trump in November because he's so self-evidently awful are just illogical if you want to predict accurately what will happen.

Not only that, but the system is different. We've seen several times recently that it doesn't matter how many votes Biden piles up in California and New York; if he doesn't win in enough States, even by half-a-dozen votes, the Electoral College will stay the way it did last time.
What Trump appears to be doing is what he did last time. Reach out to the people who aren't doing all that well, and convince them that it's the nasty THEM who are to blame.

That is story crafting. Trump got less vote than Romney in Wisconsin but still won the state.

The story people keep telling themselves is that Trump's election was a white working class revolt against the Liberal elite.

But that doesn't work. There was nothing remarkable about the demographics of Trump's 2016 vote compared to Romney in 2012.

People so want Trump and Brexit to be part of a "moment" that they have linked them. I suspect there are a number of people on both sides of the spectrum who see defeat for Trump in November as a blow against Brexit.

Which it wouldn't be, as they are not linked.

I think my biggest worry is that the US economy turns around in September, Trump will get the credit and a lot of those less motivated anti-Trump voters sit on their hands because "he got he economy up and running again" and that will be mostly white suburban middle class types in the rust belt. It's legitimately the reason my betting on this election is in the tens of pounds and that's been on Pence to be the next president.

I wonder if the October surprise will be a Trump-branded vaccine offered free to all Americans?

It’s certainly possible that something like a national vaccine bill gets presented, leaving the House Dems to either agree with funding it or vote it down - that’s a definite win-win for the Republicans.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.

We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1279313731894349826

There wasn't time for a competitive tender, or have they already forgot about the clamour for PPE a few months ago?

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Charles said:

That’s what the media says

No one knows what happens behind closed doors

We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.

We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.

There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.

Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want

Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.

Charles said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

EV4EL doesn’t work

Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland

RobD said:

FF43 said:

£253 million contract for PPE awarded without competitive tendering to a currency trader operating out of a Mauritius tax haven. Apparently brokered by a crony of Liz Truss. We only know about this because of an EU record keeping requirement that presumably doesn't apply after next year.

We're not talking sleaze with this government. This is Russian oligarch levels of corruption.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1279313731894349826

There wasn't time for a competitive tender, or have they already forgot about the clamour for PPE a few months ago?

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.

Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.

In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.

Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.

In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies

Charles said:

OllyT said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

I've said before that the Cummings episode ran very deep. People still make jokes about it, and now there are jokes about PM Johnson.
And they're not sympathetic jokes, either.

The whole Cummings situation - not just the Durham incident - is a structural disadvantage for the government. We keep hearing how he is the de facto PM. But nobody voted for him. In our political system, if you want that kind of political power you should stand for office. People don't like it.

That’s the thing.

The media keeps saying he’s the de facto PM. But he’s not. He’s an influential adviser but not the PM.

Surely the perception is what counts and the whole Cummings affair has cemented the notion that he his the one actually running things. I don't believe it is very wide of the mark either.

Johnson was born into privilege and has sailed through life with a combination of charm, lies, waffle and blagging. He has never done a hard day's work hard in his life. He's just the front man.

And that’s exactly my issue

The media continues to repeat an untruth for a combination of personal dislike and commercial reasons

This creates and reinforces a false perception

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

You are making some sweeping assumptions here.

If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.

A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.

Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come

Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do
hope you are correct.

I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.

Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.

Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market

I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.

Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone

You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.

I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.

I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.

Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer

But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.

He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

You are making some sweeping assumptions here.

If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.

A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.

Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come

Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do
hope you are correct.

I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.

Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.

Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market

I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.

Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone

You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.

I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.

I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.

Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer

But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.

If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.

Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

halfwit

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

EV4EL doesn’t work

Any time they want to the SNP claim Barnett consequentials mean it impacts Scotland

Would your solution be to abolish the Scottish parliament?

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

algarkirk said:

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.

To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.

If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.

Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.

Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.

Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?

1) Labour cannot win in England.
2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win.
3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.

As an English man my biggest concern about Scottish independence is that it leads to a decade of Tory rule south of the border. In time I would expect a realignment into a new competitive multiparty system, but in the short term it will be horrible.

I think it unfair to blame those in the lifeboat as the ship slowly sinks, but do feel a bit of envy.

Move north! We need good doctors. There is plenty of space in the lifeboat.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Charles said:

That’s what the media says

No one knows what happens behind closed doors

We know he sacked the previous chancellor. That is not media speculation.

We know he is setting the agenda. BoZo can't be arsed.

There are no contrary stories. No denials. No ministers offering alternative narratives on the airwaves.

Your obsession with Cummings and Boris dominates your posts, which seem to be 24/7, and yet they are both in post and despite all your efforts they can stay there as long as they want

Don't be modest, the efforts of people like you also helps them to stay in post as long as they want.

I have no problem with Cummings as I am not obsessed by him but he should have resigned and HMG is taking the hit for him not doing it

As I have said before there is some credence that he brought forward lockdown thereby saving thousands of lives including many Scots

And if so the irony meter would break

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.

Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.

In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies

The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

halfwit

half ?????

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.

Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.

In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies

The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.

If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes

I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument

International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.

To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.

The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound

And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business

LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.

No

View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family

And maybe address the border issue Malc

And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes

I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument

International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.

To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.

The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound

And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business

LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.

No

View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family

And maybe address the border issue Malc

And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

A government to receive respect needs to be willing to adapt policies to meet changed circumstances. Such a change would be a SNP majority on a manifesto promise to seek a referendum

No it wouldn't, 2014 was a once in a generation referendum in Salmond's own words

Things have changed so dramatically in that six years, that rule no longer applies.

Anyway in C2/D social groupings a generation is a lot lower than you think. So by 2024 we are only a whisker away on that metric.

In 2024 Starmer might be PM anyway, otherwise until then the winning Tory manifesto of 2019 banning indyref2 still applies

The 2019 manifesto merely says that they are opposed to a referendum, not that they rule one out.

If they are opposed to alowing another referendum then by definition that rules it out.

He was opposed to a customs border in the Irish Sea but still agreed to one.

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

algarkirk said:

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

You may be right, but for Labour to win outright there would need to be an enormous shift in popular opinion.

To get to 350 seats, Labour would need to make 147 gains. Labour target number 147 is Telford, with a Con Maj of almost 11,000, and 25 of the seats that are available on lower swings than that are held by the SNP.

If Labour can't make any gains from the SNP then Telford becomes the target to reach 325; 350 seats comes with Elmet and Rothwell, held with a Con Maj of over 17,000 and substantially safer than a number of other targets (e.g. Basingstoke, Labour target no.148) which didn't fall to the party even in 1997. For every seat that's more vulnerable to Labour that the Tories manage to hold, they need to take something even safer further down their target list to get to a majority on their own, as well as managing not to lose any of their own marginals of course.

Even this far out from the next election, it seems likely that Labour is going to need, at a minimum, the backing of the SNP bloc to win a vote of confidence in the HoC. Unless Scotland has had another independence vote and departed by 2024, in which case things get a bit easier for Labour. To win a bare majority, Starmer then "only" needs to hold everything he's got and capture every target up to and including Stevenage - though even that would require a swing to Labour marginally in excess of that achieved under Tony Blair in 1997.

Quite apart from not wanting to deal with the problem himself, that's actually another good reason (from the point of view of party political advantage at least) for Johnson to ignore any future demands for another Scottish independence referendum. Given current circumstances, keeping Scotland onboard makes life a lot more complicated for Labour: the Tories can obviously reach a Commons majority without it, Labour almost certainly can't, with all the attendant complications for Starmer's relationship with many English voters.

Is there any serious alternative to this set of assumptions?

1) Labour cannot win in England.
2) They can only hope for a majority with the support of SNP, which must involve a 2nd ref which the SNP will probably win.
3) Following which there are no Scottish seats at Westminster, and we return to the position where Labour cannot win in England and there is nowhere else for Labour to turn to for help.

As an English man my biggest concern about Scottish independence is that it leads to a decade of Tory rule south of the border. In time I would expect a realignment into a new competitive multiparty system, but in the short term it will be horrible.

I think it unfair to blame those in the lifeboat as the ship slowly sinks, but do feel a bit of envy.

Move north! We need good doctors. There is plenty of space in the lifeboat.

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.

Given Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and Madrid's in Catalonia Boris would look relatively moderate if he had to tell Sturgeon to sod off and ignore any illegal indyref. Though Sturgeon has said she will only hold indyref2 with Westminster consent anyway.

Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nasty

You only speak for some in the party and there are many others of us in the party who have a far more mature way of looking at this matter and want democracy exercised

And as I say Independence will not win in a 2021/22 referendum

No, I speak for the Tory government based on its manifesto commitment of 2019 to ban indyref2 based on the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote.

If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto

"Banning indyref2' ould easily be described as the heel of the English jackboot. Think how you would feel if it was the other way round.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last year

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

You are making some sweeping assumptions here.

If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.

A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.

Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come

Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do
hope you are correct.

I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.

Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.

Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market

I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.

Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone

You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.

I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.

I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.

Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer

But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.

He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthroug

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

You are making some sweeping assumptions here.

If Johnson does indeed screw Scotland with a WTO trade deal, the train may have already left the station, and Starmer will be powerless to stop it.

A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.

Hence the resentment would shift almost overnight from Remainers and Scots to hard Brexiteers who would remain in control of the Tories in opposition for some time to come

Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I do
hope you are correct.

I am still not sure it helps Starmer over Scotland anyway. The people of Scotland having been royally shafted by a Westminster government may decide they do not want to come back for more, even if the colour of the government's stripe changes.

Starmer has voted for single market alignment in every Commons vote on it and voted against a No Deal Brexit in every vote on it.

Scotland will always have over 40% for independence but I would expect a narrow No vote if Starmer was PM and allowed indyref2 with devomax and the UK back in the single market

I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.

Johnson will ban indyref2 so it does not matter what bad blood he generates Scots would only get a say if Starmer was PM and granted indyref2 and Boris was gone

You are putting a great deal of faith in Starmer. The only advantage with your scenario is if Starmer fails to pull Scotland back around he is the PM who smashes the Union and not Johnson. Which might work for Boris.

I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.

I am just pointing out indyref2 will only happen with a Labour government in 2024 following an SNP government in 2021, it will not happen under the Tories.

Winning the referendum he granted would then be up to Starmer

But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.

If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.

Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless

No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.

By denying a referendum while the majority of Scots feel aggrieved about it you're simply stoking up resentment and making it more likely that when the Scots finally get a second referendum they vote Yes.

Denying a referendum now is the same sort of genius that led to pro-Europeans denying referenda on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon etc stoking up resentment all along until it finally blew up our membership altogether.

No, even if a second referendum was won the SNP would be pushing for indyref3 within 5 minutes.

The 2014 referendum was once in a generation and must be respected as such.

Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes

I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument

International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.

To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.

The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound

And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business

LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.

No

View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family

And maybe address the border issue Malc

And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain

G, every country has borders, unless England was really stupid it would change little from what it is today. If they wanted to be total isolationists then we jsut build our infrastructure and deal direct with Europe rather than having to go via English ports, hence your ridiculous 60% number which is only due to having to go via England. Just look at Ireland who had 90% + with England, now marginal and they are far more prosperous. Can you name any small country that is worse off than Scotland apart from Wales.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.

It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.

According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.

With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.

SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.

Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.

Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.

Agreed, assuming the polling is predicting a hung parliament, some sort of Lib/Lab pact, especially in many of the Southern seats where Lab are a clear third, in exchange for Labour stating clearly and unequivocally that they’ll refuse to work with the SNP.

Running the Lib Dems as a proxy Labour Party for Southern England might get Labour a bit closer to depriving the Tories of their majority, but it doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the Conservatives are highly unlikely to be so badly mauled that either Lab or Lab+LD = a majority. Absent that prospect, the SNP will float like a toxic miasma all around Labour's next GE campaign in England and infect the whole thing with its off-putting smell.

Ruling with the cooperation of the SNP's bloc of MPs creates all of the problems that I've just suggested below; refusing to play ball with them, on the other hand, doesn't mean that there's no alternative for the SNP, given that they won't put the Conservatives back into bat. They can leave Starmer in office but not in power for a couple of years - so long as the EVEL mechanisms are left in place, a majority of Tory MPs in England can wreck much of Starmer's programme without this having much effect on Scotland - and then bring him down by supporting a VoNC at a time of their choosing.

If Scottish Labour cannot find a way back into the game - and there's nothing at present to suggest that they can - then Labour's best hope of getting a sniff of power during this decade arguably lies in Scottish independence and the consequent removal of these problems. That is, whilst almost anything is possible given the current volatile political situation, the likelihood of Labour being able to command a Commons majority without SNP votes does nonetheless seem pretty remote.

In 2010 there were over 50 LD MPs, most of which were in what are now Con seats. If a few dozen paper Lab candidates in southern England were enough to give 50 LDs again, then Lab only need 270 or thereabouts, which isn’t too unreasonable if the Con government can’t deliver for the Red Wall in the Midlands.

Lab need to be totally unequivocal about not working with the SNP though, or they’ll lose a million potential English votes. In a completely hung Parliament, an immediate second election would be preferable to Starmer, as opposed to spending months being held to ransom by the Scottish Nationalists followed by a second election anyway.

No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.

Paradoxically, I think a Unionist victory in Sindyref3 is more likely under a Labour Westminster government with a more positive European policy.

This isn't 2015, and Sturgeon polls well south of the border. Indeed sometimes more popular here than north of it! A bit of sane Social Democracy is much envied.

Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.

The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway

I realise that PM Johnson is only interested in the 'will of the people' when it's with him, but what would happen if an SNP Govt., confirmed by next years Holyrood elections went ahead with one anyway? And, on a 70%+ turnout won .... say 60-40 Yes?

To be recognised Internationally it has to be confirmed in a referendum approved by Westminster but in your scenario, Westminster should cede the referendum but remember the SNP manifesto will be to hold said referendum and in a 60 - 40 result that should happen but it does not follow 60 - 40 will vote yes

I have maintained for decades that Scotland will not vote for independence and even more so post covid but of course many disagree with me and that is the nature of the argument

International recognition is a step further than I was considering. In the scenario I presented, there is a obviously a pro-independence population. Even if HYUFD is right and Unionists are urged to boycott some will not and it will come down to numbers. If it looks like almost half of the total Scottish adult population has voted to Leave the Union surely even PM Johnson will have to pause.

To be honest I do not see an obvious pro independence population but a pro referendum one possibly.

The 'grass is greener' comes to mind but there are mind boggling obstacles to Scotland succeeded ourside of the union and if you thought the Irish border was a problem wait until you come to the Scots English hard border with custom checks on 60% of Scots exports and 'bureau de change' for euro to the pound

And that is before differential tax rates in RUK favour, especially on business

LOL, view from southern Britain via blue tinted rosy specs.

No

View from someone who has lived with this argument most of his life and has a huge Scots family

And maybe address the border issue Malc

And North Wales is not Southern Britain. We are much closer to the Scots border than to Southern Britain

To Malcolm Newcastle upon Tyne is Southern Britain . . .