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.
To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.
To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.
It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.
That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.
It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.
Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.
Is 3.25 "quite likely"?
I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.
If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
Scotland would get a lightning fast EU accession just to spite England.
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.
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 . . .
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.
To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.
To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.
It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.
That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.
It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.
Totally agree. But the level of economic shit about to hit could be sufficient to produce a massive swing. We will see.
Johnson's 'administration' will be deeply, deeply unpopular by next summer imho.
But there's still 3 more years to undo that, I think Starmer's approach of negative comments and just generally posing problems rather than solutions is also not going down as well as people believe. He compares favourably to Boris, yes, but that's a low bar that has itself been taken down a few levels by the poor virus response. If anything Starmer should be much further ahead.
If he has offered to help and been rebuffed, I have to say I don’t see why he’s honour bound to offer solutions. John Smith has no solutions to Black Wednesday or the Maastricht crisis, but that didn’t stop him playing them for all they were worth politically. For the matter of that, George Osborne looked totally bewildered during the banking crisis, offering ‘Sector bail ins’ as a solution when he clearly didn’t understand the concept.
The real problem is of course that we have unfortunately come to a time when there are no good solutions - only bad ones and worse ones.
Maybe solutions is the wrong word, alternative is probably better. What would Labour do in these situations, as a voter I still don't know and I pay more attention than most. He seems content to say what Labour would have done but that's not the same thing, it's the main reason Labour are still behind in the polls.
Can you provide examples of an Opposition coming up with firm policy proposals almost four years in advance of an election? Thatcher was certainly not doing so in mid-1975 even though an election could have come about much sooner given the Government's small majority.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
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.
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
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
Scotland would get a lightning fast EU accession just to spite England.
Really? After all these years that they've been telling us how important rules are to them (unless they apply to the French agricultural sector, obviously...)
If I were an independent Scotland, to be serious, I would first of all want to make sure the Spanish were OK with any application. I can easily see the Spanish government vetoing a Scottish application just to send a message to Catalonia.
I could see that even when the UK was in the EU. So could Barroso. Now they don't have to explain any legacy issues, they could easily just say, 'Small nationalities that break off from big polities get screwed over.'
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
Was it held because the EU finally gave permission for it or because the UK (or rather Wangland) decided it wanted to hold another one?
You mean Unions of different types have different legal and procedural rules that might apply in their different situations? Astonishing!
I support, regretfully, that there should be another one and aside from practical considerations it should be soon, but the focus on the legal process route is such an obvious red herring.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
Scotland would get a lightning fast EU accession just to spite England.
Only if the divorce was amicable, or the Spanish would slow things down.
interesring snippet in the Times a couple of days ago,
"Out of 40,000 claimed [Momentum] members, just over 8,000 voted," [in the recent election for a slate]
The students have got bored and moved on, most of them probably having not knocked on a single door in their time as serious agitators.
Who would have thought it?
Pretty sure they were shown to be a lot more active in the physical world than non-Momentum members.
Having campaigned in a marginal near Manchester the last couple of elections, I've seen a huge number out and about.
8000 seems low, but I wonder how it compares to past elections? What's also interesting about that vote is that the "change" slate won 20 out of 20 seats. The other slate was backed by a lot of MPs, the old leadership etc., so it'll be interesting to see what happens. Change may be good, but all these clean sweeps can't be great for unity.
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
Scotland would get a lightning fast EU accession just to spite England.
Really? After all these years that they've been telling us how important rules are to them (unless they apply to the French agricultural sector, obviously...)
If I were an independent Scotland, to be serious, I would first of all want to make sure the Spanish were OK with any application. I can easily see the Spanish government vetoing a Scottish application just to send a message to Catalonia.
I could see that even when the UK was in the EU. So could Barroso. Now they don't have to explain any legacy issues, they could easily just say, 'Small nationalities that break off from big polities get screwed over.'
Despite them having said the opposite all along and that there was no comparison between the two.
Even the 2016 referendum was 41 years after the first EEC referendum
Was it held because the EU finally gave permission for it or because the UK (or rather Wangland) decided it wanted to hold another one?
You mean Unions of different types have different legal and procedural rules that might apply in their different situations? Astonishing!
I support, regretfully, that there should be another one and aside from practical considerations it should be soon, but the focus on the legal process route is such an obvious red herring.
It's not a process point but a sovereignty point. You can legally leave the EU unilaterally.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
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.
Telford was held by Labour until 2015. It swung heavily against the party in 2019.Why is such a short term swing so unlikely to be reversed - particularly when the factors likely to have driven it - Brexit and Corbyn - will not be relevant in 2024?
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.
I shall stick to England for a bit longer, but if Scotland gets Independence in Europe, it would be an attractive move.
By the time Scotland has:
1) voted for another referendum 2) held it 3) voted yes 4) negotiated independence 5) attained independence 6) applied to join the EU 7) been accepted 8) actually acceded
I am expecting to have retired.
And you are older than I am...
and wiser
Well, wisdom would be nice. But being Welsh and therefore naturally awesome I don't really need it
The Good Friday Agreement definition of the duration of a referendum mandate is 7 years.
That definition does not include any reference to once in a generation as Salmond confirmed the 2014 vote would be
Salmond "confirmed"? Are the words of Alex Salmond now part of our unwritten constitution?
Our constitution is based on parliamentary sovereignty and what the party with a majority in the Commons says, that is now the Tories who are opposed to indyref2 for a generation
This is brilliant - on twitter loads of lefty Bertie Smalls' are reporting him to the police for breaking quarantine etc- I am sure the last thing Nige wants is publicly being hauled over coals for rebelliously having a pint, what will it do to his image?!!
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
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
Me thinks his team have told him to develop a personality
Yeah, every bloke in the country is breaking his neck to get down the pub for the first time in months, so Sir Keir starts talking about having a shampoo and set!
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
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
Such as?
Well, both the Civil Service reorganisation and the uncompromising Brexit stances seem driven by Cummings, not Johnson.
He also seemed to retain ultimate control throughout the Barnard Castle affair, giving his own outdoor press conference, in a style which seemed reminiscent of the whole government's media operation.
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.
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
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.
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.
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
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.
Telford was held by Labour until 2015. It swung heavily against the party in 2019.Why is such a short term swing so unlikely to be reversed - particularly when the factors likely to have driven it - Brexit and Corbyn - will not be relevant in 2024?
Telford (and the neighbouring Wrekin) though has been trending away from Labour for a while. It's only got a small, very untypical university, much of the employment is in light industry of one description or another, and it is 90% white (95% white British). That's a demographic profile that compares closely to those seats in say, Durham that have been gradually slipping to the Blues since 2001.
After 10 years in opposition it would be normal for Labour to start to see poll leads by now. Labour certainly had a few in 1989 for example as did the Tories in 2007.
However while the polls are much closer now under Starmer than they were under Corbyn last year as Remainers who disliked Corbyn and voted LD in 2019 have gone back to Labour, the Tory vote remains virtually unchanged from the last general election.
Unless Tory voters start to move to Labour or the LDs then the Tories will remain ahead. Perhaps the likeliest way that would occur is if we go to WTO terms Brexit and some Tory Remainers switch to the opposition parties (though of course if Boris extended the transition period then some Tory Leavers could move back to the Brexit Party which might also put Labour ahead with no increase in its voteshare)
But 1989 and 2007 were both two years into a Parliament. Moroeover, the 1959 Parliament saw the Tories under Macmillan remain ahead of Labour until Autumn 1961. The most recent poll has the Tories on 42% - compared with 44.7% on a GB basis in December 2019.
Is Starmer really suggesting the government pays people not to work indefinitely? It could be years until we have a vaccine.
I presume it is no coincidence that by the time the furlough system is ended we will know if Oxford vaccine is a goer i.e.we know if we will have one for the winter 2nd wave.
interesring snippet in the Times a couple of days ago,
"Out of 40,000 claimed [Momentum] members, just over 8,000 voted," [in the recent election for a slate]
The students have got bored and moved on, most of them probably having not knocked on a single door in their time as serious agitators.
Who would have thought it?
First bit of your comment is fair; second a bit harsh. I reckon Momentum is pretty much finished as a significant force, and this is evidence of that. Starmer will pay what's left of them zero attention.
But harsh to say they didn't knock on doors. At the last two elections thousands of them were doing just that. Mind you, many of them didn't know what to say when they did, and they probably lost more votes than they won when canvassing.
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.
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
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
We're not the ones holding the gun.
No? The argument seems to go:
SNP: Give us another referendum because circumstances have changed so that a generation now means 6 years despite irrelevant things like the dictionary definition of a generation.
HMG: No.
SNP: If you don't, it'll hasten Scottish independence for sure!
HMG: Really? You wouldn't ask for another ref if you didn't think you had a good chance of winning. That means that giving you a referendum in this Parliament puts the chances of Scottish independence within the next 4 years at 50%+. Denying you the referendum puts them at 0%. Is 50%+ more or less than 0%?
SNP: Er.....
HMG: And then in 2024 either the Conservatives will win again, which again means no chance of independence until 2029, or you'll be dependent on Sir Rodney, who doesn't seem all that keen either. Either way, the odds are a lot lower than 50% if we just sit on our hands and refuse to play.
SNP: I'm gonna shove this here turnip in your Sassenass...
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
THat's a weak argument Charles. You don't ask for a second go if you've already got the result you wanted. When Wotsername defeated Balls, the first sign was that Labour had asked for a recount, and Marr said drily, 'You don't ask for a recount if you're ahead.'
Edit - Andrea Jenkyns. Could not remember her name. Kept confusing her with Leadsom.
Re header, thanks for the article David, it is a very interesting read and well written as normal. I do disagree with it a bit - I think we are in a bit of a trench warfare situation at the moment: Labour has picked up low hanging fruit support such as Lib Dems, those who were put off by Corbyn and returning to the fold, and possibly some pro-Remain Tories but it doesn't feel like he has really pulled back many of the "Red Wall" switchers to the Tories and I suspect he will struggle to do so, at least short-term, given the main dividing line in politics now seems to be cultural. I suspect the poll positions will pretty much fluctuate where we are until / unless the Government makes a major cock-up
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
My view is a minority one but it seems to me that it would by folly for the SNP to actually have Ref2, as opposed to a permanent policy that there should be one, in case it loses again, and indeed in case it wins. And it would be folly for the Tories to keep resisting the calls to have one because to do so keeps the SNP in their favoured position of having power without much responsibility.
In the unlikely event that I am correct, there is a good deal of doublespeak happening.
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.
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
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.
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.
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
And its that same sort of logic that made Major, Blair, Brown etc always find a reason to deny a referendum for the EU until it was too late.
Thatcher reportedly believed that if you weren't behind in the polls within 6 months of coming into office you weren't doing your job properly - getting the tough, unpopular decisions out of the way early in your term, with the results showing up later in time for you to win re-election. The trouble with this shambles is that Johnson wants to be loved. Thatcher didn't care whether people liked her or not - all she wanted, in so far as she cared about what others thought, was respect.
By unpopular decisions though I don't she meant things on the scale of making a total horlicks of the virus response including sending thousands into care homes untested.
Except that’s not true.
The data wasn’t collected but hospital policy was to test
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
I don't see how that works.
Unless something totally unforeseen happens, Brexit happens at the end of this year. Either with some sort of deal, or without a deal beyond minimal WTO terms.
That event will have consequences, somewhere on the spectrum of brilliant to fine to awful.
If, when the dust settles, the consequences are fine or better, Brexit ceases to be an issue. The present government is vindicated, and probably wins in 2024 fairly easily. Starmer certainly keeps quiet about Europe.
If the consequences are negative, the government will be in trouble. As with the poll tax, the pressure to scuttle the flagship policy will surely be irresistible. And if that means making the admiral and navigator walk the plank, so be it. The failure of Brexit will surely destroy the government's chances at the next election (bad Brexit + Covid will be bigger negatives than the poll tax was, Rishi Sunak isn't John Major yet and the 2019 cull got rid of a lot of potential clean hands) but the mother of all U turns will limit the damage a bit.
Note that I'm not saying which of these will happen. I have forebodings, but I accept that others disagree. But the coin is in the air, unless there is a miracle it will land one way of the other. I also get that it's in the interests of the Conservative party to keep Brexit alive as a wedge issue for as long as possible. But I don't get how they achieve it.
Me thinks his team have told him to develop a personality
Yeah, every bloke in the country is breaking his neck to get down the pub for the first time in months, so Sir Keir starts talking about having a shampoo and set!
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.
Telford was held by Labour until 2015. It swung heavily against the party in 2019.Why is such a short term swing so unlikely to be reversed - particularly when the factors likely to have driven it - Brexit and Corbyn - will not be relevant in 2024?
Telford (and the neighbouring Wrekin) though has been trending away from Labour for a while. It's only got a small, very untypical university, much of the employment is in light industry of one description or another, and it is 90% white (95% white British). That's a demographic profile that compares closely to those seats in say, Durham that have been gradually slipping to the Blues since 2001.
The big Tory surge there was in 2017 and 2019. It remains to be seen how solid that vote is.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
No it doesn't. There is no "ultimately" as time never stops. Politics never stops.
How Brexit ultimately looks will be determined by New Years Day when transition ends. Even if Boris wins the next election there's always a chance that Labour could win a 2029 election on an EEC mandate. Your logic is meaningless.
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.
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
How long is a generation in this calculus?
20 years strikes me as reasonable. At that point you will have people who have never had a say having a chance to vote. But it’s not so close that it dominates the day to day of politics
Talking of Russia ... Stodge's thought-provoking header yesterday talked about Johnson's political philosophy. I am more interested in Dominic Cummings because clearly he is informing the government's thinking far more than Johnson. What is he is up to? What is he trying to achieve and why?
This is an interesting blog on a certain type of reformer in the 1960's Soviet Union that seems to have parallels with Cummings. Those reforms failed through their own contradictions.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know some diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
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.
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
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
We're not the ones holding the gun.
No? The argument seems to go:
SNP: Give us another referendum because circumstances have changed so that a generation now means 6 years despite irrelevant things like the dictionary definition of a generation.
HMG: No.
SNP: If you don't, it'll hasten Scottish independence for sure!
HMG: Really? You wouldn't ask for another ref if you didn't think you had a good chance of winning. That means that giving you a referendum in this Parliament puts the chances of Scottish independence within the next 4 years at 50%+. Denying you the referendum puts them at 0%. Is 50%+ more or less than 0%?
SNP: Er.....
HMG: And then in 2024 either the Conservatives will win again, which again means no chance of independence until 2029, or you'll be dependent on Sir Rodney, who doesn't seem all that keen either. Either way, the odds are a lot lower than 50% if we just sit on our hands and refuse to play.
SNP: I'm gonna shove this here turnip in your Sassenass...
HMG Always a pleasure talking to you!
Who said political satire was dead? If the UK government refuses a referendum after the SNP win the Holyrood elections then I think they will go down the unilateral referendum route. Any attempt by the British state to prevent it will be a win for the SNP, making independence even more likely. Ultimately the UK will let Scotland go, it's not existential for them like Catalonia is for the Spanish.
I really don't understand this 'once in a generation' argument. OK, the cost and distraction elements are there, but if sentiment has changed (EVEN if circumstances have not), it has changed. RUK had no moral case to keep Scotland in the Union against its will, even if RUK believes it is imperative to maintain the Union. If it does believe that, RUK should be trying to win the argument, not preventing measurement of sentiment - and preventing the measurement is one way to lose a bit more of the argument.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
I don't see how that works.
Unless something totally unforeseen happens, Brexit happens at the end of this year. Either with some sort of deal, or without a deal beyond minimal WTO terms.
That event will have consequences, somewhere on the spectrum of brilliant to fine to awful.
If, when the dust settles, the consequences are fine or better, Brexit ceases to be an issue. The present government is vindicated, and probably wins in 2024 fairly easily. Starmer certainly keeps quiet about Europe.
If the consequences are negative, the government will be in trouble. As with the poll tax, the pressure to scuttle the flagship policy will surely be irresistible. And if that means making the admiral and navigator walk the plank, so be it. The failure of Brexit will surely destroy the government's chances at the next election (bad Brexit + Covid will be bigger negatives than the poll tax was, Rishi Sunak isn't John Major yet and the 2019 cull got rid of a lot of potential clean hands) but the mother of all U turns will limit the damage a bit.
Note that I'm not saying which of these will happen. I have forebodings, but I accept that others disagree. But the coin is in the air, unless there is a miracle it will land one way of the other. I also get that it's in the interests of the Conservative party to keep Brexit alive as a wedge issue for as long as possible. But I don't get how they achieve it.
Good post but minor quibble - I think "brilliant" can be taken safely out of the discussion.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.
May be we should have a plebiscite on whether to have a referendum?
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.
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
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
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.
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
How long is a generation in this calculus?
20 years strikes me as reasonable. At that point you will have people who have never had a say having a chance to vote. But it’s not so close that it dominates the day to day of politics
Except it already is dominating the day to day of politics and will continue to do so until this is resolved.
Boris won't agree to indyref2 this parliament simply because it's not in his political interests to do so. There are no potential rewards for him or the Conservative party in allowing one, and plenty of drawbacks needless to say. Even if No were to win it, it *might* well lead to the SNP disintegrating and SLAB rising from the dead... and that would not be good for his prospects of winning the next election. The current constitutional deadlock suits him fine... it keeps SLAB buried in the ground, and means Starmer gets asked the same awkward questions about the SNP as Ed was.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
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.
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
How long is a generation in this calculus?
At least 15 years ie 2029 at the earliest
So no actual legal definition of how long a generation is, nor any mention of 'once in a generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper. Amazing the lengths that the ultra Yoons will go to avoid the uncomfortable fact that they don't have the balls to ask Scottish voters what they think.
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 won in England - in terms of seats - in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - Oct 1974 -1966 -and 1945
Boris won't agree to indyref2 this parliament simply because it's not in his political interests to do so. There are no potential rewards for him or the Conservative party in allowing one, and plenty of drawbacks needless to say. Even if No were to win it, it *might* well lead to the SNP disintegrating and SLAB rising from the dead... and that would not be good for his prospects of winning the next election. The current constitutional deadlock suits him fine... it keeps SLAB buried in the ground, and means Starmer gets asked the same awkward questions about the SNP as Ed was.
I agree. On a purely selfish attitude leaving this mess for Labour to clean up is better than dealing with it himself.
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.
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
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
We're not the ones holding the gun.
No? The argument seems to go:
SNP: Give us another referendum because circumstances have changed so that a generation now means 6 years despite irrelevant things like the dictionary definition of a generation.
HMG: No.
SNP: If you don't, it'll hasten Scottish independence for sure!
HMG: Really? You wouldn't ask for another ref if you didn't think you had a good chance of winning. That means that giving you a referendum in this Parliament puts the chances of Scottish independence within the next 4 years at 50%+. Denying you the referendum puts them at 0%. Is 50%+ more or less than 0%?
SNP: Er.....
HMG: And then in 2024 either the Conservatives will win again, which again means no chance of independence until 2029, or you'll be dependent on Sir Rodney, who doesn't seem all that keen either. Either way, the odds are a lot lower than 50% if we just sit on our hands and refuse to play.
SNP: I'm gonna shove this here turnip in your Sassenass...
HMG Always a pleasure talking to you!
Who said political satire was dead? If the UK government refuses a referendum after the SNP win the Holyrood elections then I think they will go down the unilateral referendum route. Any attempt by the British state to prevent it will be a win for the SNP, making independence even more likely. Ultimately the UK will let Scotland go, it's not existential for them like Catalonia is for the Spanish.
If they want to go unilateral, let them go unilateral. Because that will require them to grow some serious balls and take some serious political risks for once. And those may work out not necessarily to their advantage...
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
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
Such as?
Well, both the Civil Service reorganisation and the uncompromising Brexit stances seem driven by Cummings, not Johnson.
He also seemed to retain ultimate control throughout the Barnard Castle affair, giving his own outdoor press conference, in a style which seemed reminiscent of the whole government's media operation.
he is influential in driving issues. He was instructed to give that press conference - his preference was to lay low.
The fact that his employment will last for about 35 seconds after Boris is replaced as PM means he’s not in charge
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.
May be we should have a plebiscite on whether to have a referendum?
There'll be one Charles. 2021 Holyrood election where its no doubt the #1 issue debated in the election.
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.
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
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.
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
To anyone with half their wits about them its clear that Brexit was a substantial change and if there were a second No victory then that would settle the matter like the second Quebecois No did. The SNP would lack a clear change of circumstances after that.
That it took 41 years to have a second European referendum is precisely why Brexit happened. The pro-European governments over decades denied a referendum building up resentment until it blew. Had there been more referenda down the years we would still be in the EU today.
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years after
A referendum in 2022 (after the 2021 Scottish election) would be 8 years after - and as much politically has happened in the last half a dozen years as could happen in many decades.
8 years is not a generation on any definition.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
I don't see how that works.
Unless something totally unforeseen happens, Brexit happens at the end of this year. Either with some sort of deal, or without a deal beyond minimal WTO terms.
That event will have consequences, somewhere on the spectrum of brilliant to fine to awful.
If, when the dust settles, the consequences are fine or better, Brexit ceases to be an issue. The present government is vindicated, and probably wins in 2024 fairly easily. Starmer certainly keeps quiet about Europe.
If the consequences are negative, the government will be in trouble. As with the poll tax, the pressure to scuttle the flagship policy will surely be irresistible. And if that means making the admiral and navigator walk the plank, so be it. The failure of Brexit will surely destroy the government's chances at the next election (bad Brexit + Covid will be bigger negatives than the poll tax was, Rishi Sunak isn't John Major yet and the 2019 cull got rid of a lot of potential clean hands) but the mother of all U turns will limit the damage a bit.
Note that I'm not saying which of these will happen. I have forebodings, but I accept that others disagree. But the coin is in the air, unless there is a miracle it will land one way of the other. I also get that it's in the interests of the Conservative party to keep Brexit alive as a wedge issue for as long as possible. But I don't get how they achieve it.
Brexit already happened in January.
The next general election will determine whether voters are happy to keep WTO terms Brexit or a basic FTA under Boris if he is re elected or they want closer alignment to the single market if they elect Starmer instead
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
THat's a weak argument Charles. You don't ask for a second go if you've already got the result you wanted. When Wotsername defeated Balls, the first sign was that Labour had asked for a recount, and Marr said drily, 'You don't ask for a recount if you're ahead.'
Edit - Andrea Jenkyns. Could not remember her name. Kept confusing her with Leadsom.
The claim was there is clear majority demand for a referendum
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
The perception that Cummings is really running the country has gained such wide currency not because it is a media lie but precisely because there is a lot of truth in it. There is plenty of evidence there to substantiate that assertion.
Such as?
Well, both the Civil Service reorganisation and the uncompromising Brexit stances seem driven by Cummings, not Johnson.
He also seemed to retain ultimate control throughout the Barnard Castle affair, giving his own outdoor press conference, in a style which seemed reminiscent of the whole government's media operation.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
We'd be having a party.
Very often the English do humiliate themselves following parties. It was very notable in Aberystwyth...
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.
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
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.
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.
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
And its that same sort of logic that made Major, Blair, Brown etc always find a reason to deny a referendum for the EU until it was too late.
How frequently should there be referendums on a single topic?
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
You do, you want to use it to force England back into the EU
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.
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
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...
We're not the ones holding the gun.
No? The argument seems to go:
SNP: Give us another referendum because circumstances have changed so that a generation now means 6 years despite irrelevant things like the dictionary definition of a generation.
HMG: No.
SNP: If you don't, it'll hasten Scottish independence for sure!
HMG: Really? You wouldn't ask for another ref if you didn't think you had a good chance of winning. That means that giving you a referendum in this Parliament puts the chances of Scottish independence within the next 4 years at 50%+. Denying you the referendum puts them at 0%. Is 50%+ more or less than 0%?
SNP: Er.....
HMG: And then in 2024 either the Conservatives will win again, which again means no chance of independence until 2029, or you'll be dependent on Sir Rodney, who doesn't seem all that keen either. Either way, the odds are a lot lower than 50% if we just sit on our hands and refuse to play.
SNP: I'm gonna shove this here turnip in your Sassenass...
HMG Always a pleasure talking to you!
Who said political satire was dead? If the UK government refuses a referendum after the SNP win the Holyrood elections then I think they will go down the unilateral referendum route. Any attempt by the British state to prevent it will be a win for the SNP, making independence even more likely. Ultimately the UK will let Scotland go, it's not existential for them like Catalonia is for the Spanish.
The Spanish have shown in Catalonia illegal indyrefs can be ignored.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
You do, you want to use it to force England back into the EU
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I think it would liberate England from the narrow British nationalism represented by you in this thread.
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.
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
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.
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.
The counter argument being there was one 6 years ago and the only cries for a new referendum come from the people who did not get majority support.
And its that same sort of logic that made Major, Blair, Brown etc always find a reason to deny a referendum for the EU until it was too late.
How frequently should there be referendums on a single topic?
As often as necessary.
The Irish have one every time there's a major constitutional change and that's ensured they have been listened to and taken along with the changes.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
You do, you want to use it to force England back into the EU
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I think it would liberate England from the narrow British nationalism represented by you in this thread.
Or in other words force England to become a mere province of a Federal EU, with the Euro at al
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.
To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.
To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.
It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.
That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.
It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.
Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.
Is 3.25 "quite likely"?
I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.
If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.
I'd think "quite likely" is more likely than merely "likely" but not as likely as "very likely".
So it's good we've had this exchange because we now know that we use the word "likely" in a different way. Also the word "quite" - where I maintain you are being exotic and niche. It is normally a qualifier which mutes an adjective rather than amplifies it.
For example, "Marti Pellow is a good singer. Ronan Keating is quite a good singer."
If someone says this, I would suggest that they consider Pellow to be a better singer than Keating. Per you, it's the other way around.
That's odd. It's not going on the list, but it is odd.
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 won in England - in terms of seats - in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - Oct 1974 -1966 -and 1945
Yes, assumption 1 is based on a concept of stability and moderate swings that has not recently been a characteristic of British politics. Extreme volatility is becoming the norm. Conservatives taking Mansfield and Labour taking Kensington would have seemed outlandish even 10 years ago.
Assumption 2 is probably wrong - I agree that no UK government can really prevent indyref2 forever (are we going to deploy the army to seize Scottish polling stations?), but equally I doubt whether Scots would choose the risks of independence if they've been liberated from a Conservative government that they see as hostile. An amicable Lab-SNP arrangement which led to an agreed indyref2 is paradoxially inimical to the chances of its success.
Assumption 3 is also wrong in the long term - the world is full of examples of the fact that electorates opt for change sooner or later.
The most likely outcome seems to me to be a minority Labour Government with SNP support in exchange for an indyref2 towards the end of the 5-year cycle (i.e. 2029). None of us can reasonably be sure how Scots (or anyone) will feel in 2029, but I doubt if independence would be the result.
It’s unacceptable to refuse Scotland another referendum if the next Scottish elections return a majority SNP government.
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
Exactly. I was a Unionist in 2014. But seeing Scotland dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people was a stark piece of education in the toxicity of the Union for Scotland. Call it Brexit Enlightenment Syndrome.
I know dome diehard Remainers like you and William Glenn are desperate for indyref2 and a Scottish Yes vote so a humiliated England and Wales will rush back to rejoin a Federal EU with their tails between their legs but it will not work out that way
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?
You do, you want to use it to force England back into the EU
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I think it would liberate England from the narrow British nationalism represented by you in this thread.
Or in other words force England to become a mere province of a Federal EU, with the Euro at al
You don't even think England should have its own parliament.
Comments
I'd think "quite likely" is more likely than merely "likely" but not as likely as "very likely".
If I were an independent Scotland, to be serious, I would first of all want to make sure the Spanish were OK with any application. I can easily see the Spanish government vetoing a Scottish application just to send a message to Catalonia.
I could see that even when the UK was in the EU. So could Barroso. Now they don't have to explain any legacy issues, they could easily just say, 'Small nationalities that break off from big polities get screwed over.'
I support, regretfully, that there should be another one and aside from practical considerations it should be soon, but the focus on the legal process route is such an obvious red herring.
Plus we will not even know what Brexit looks like unti after the next general election anyway ie FTA with the EU or WTO terms Brexit with Boris or maybe back in the single market with Starmer
Having campaigned in a marginal near Manchester the last couple of elections, I've seen a huge number out and about.
8000 seems low, but I wonder how it compares to past elections? What's also interesting about that vote is that the "change" slate won 20 out of 20 seats. The other slate was backed by a lot of MPs, the old leadership etc., so it'll be interesting to see what happens. Change may be good, but all these clean sweeps can't be great for unity.
Pause
Ah, my coat...
Future governments may seek to change what is arranged but that will happen forever, the transition ends this year.
How Brexit ultimately looks depends on whether Boris or Starmer wins the next general election
You can’t keep Scotland as some hostage in the Union . If Brexit hadn’t happened then Unionists might have had an argument to say there’s been no material change in circumstances .
Because of Brexit there has been that change . If Unionists cared so much about the Union then those Leavers should have thought about that before ticking the Leave box !
This is brilliant - on twitter loads of lefty Bertie Smalls' are reporting him to the police for breaking quarantine etc- I am sure the last thing Nige wants is publicly being hauled over coals for rebelliously having a pint, what will it do to his image?!!
He also seemed to retain ultimate control throughout the Barnard Castle affair, giving his own outdoor press conference, in a style which seemed reminiscent of the whole government's media operation.
The most recent poll has the Tories on 42% - compared with 44.7% on a GB basis in December 2019.
I presume it is no coincidence that by the time the furlough system is ended we will know if Oxford vaccine is a goer i.e.we know if we will have one for the winter 2nd wave.
I reckon Momentum is pretty much finished as a significant force, and this is evidence of that. Starmer will pay what's left of them zero attention.
But harsh to say they didn't knock on doors. At the last two elections thousands of them were doing just that. Mind you, many of them didn't know what to say when they did, and they probably lost more votes than they won when canvassing.
SNP: Give us another referendum because circumstances have changed so that a generation now means 6 years despite irrelevant things like the dictionary definition of a generation.
HMG: No.
SNP: If you don't, it'll hasten Scottish independence for sure!
HMG: Really? You wouldn't ask for another ref if you didn't think you had a good chance of winning. That means that giving you a referendum in this Parliament puts the chances of Scottish independence within the next 4 years at 50%+. Denying you the referendum puts them at 0%. Is 50%+ more or less than 0%?
SNP: Er.....
HMG: And then in 2024 either the Conservatives will win again, which again means no chance of independence until 2029, or you'll be dependent on Sir Rodney, who doesn't seem all that keen either. Either way, the odds are a lot lower than 50% if we just sit on our hands and refuse to play.
SNP: I'm gonna shove this here turnip in your Sassenass...
HMG Always a pleasure talking to you!
Edit - Andrea Jenkyns. Could not remember her name. Kept confusing her with Leadsom.
In the unlikely event that I am correct, there is a good deal of doublespeak happening.
The data wasn’t collected but hospital policy was to test
Unless something totally unforeseen happens, Brexit happens at the end of this year. Either with some sort of deal, or without a deal beyond minimal WTO terms.
That event will have consequences, somewhere on the spectrum of brilliant to fine to awful.
If, when the dust settles, the consequences are fine or better, Brexit ceases to be an issue. The present government is vindicated, and probably wins in 2024 fairly easily. Starmer certainly keeps quiet about Europe.
If the consequences are negative, the government will be in trouble. As with the poll tax, the pressure to scuttle the flagship policy will surely be irresistible. And if that means making the admiral and navigator walk the plank, so be it. The failure of Brexit will surely destroy the government's chances at the next election (bad Brexit + Covid will be bigger negatives than the poll tax was, Rishi Sunak isn't John Major yet and the 2019 cull got rid of a lot of potential clean hands) but the mother of all U turns will limit the damage a bit.
Note that I'm not saying which of these will happen. I have forebodings, but I accept that others disagree. But the coin is in the air, unless there is a miracle it will land one way of the other. I also get that it's in the interests of the Conservative party to keep Brexit alive as a wedge issue for as long as possible. But I don't get how they achieve it.
How Brexit ultimately looks will be determined by New Years Day when transition ends. Even if Boris wins the next election there's always a chance that Labour could win a 2029 election on an EEC mandate. Your logic is meaningless.
Money cant buy that kind of promotion, unless you're in with a Tory Minister
If most Mps can't do simple GCSE probability, not sure what good giving them Monte Carlo simulations is going to be.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1279385211239792640?s=20
If the UK government refuses a referendum after the SNP win the Holyrood elections then I think they will go down the unilateral referendum route. Any attempt by the British state to prevent it will be a win for the SNP, making independence even more likely. Ultimately the UK will let Scotland go, it's not existential for them like Catalonia is for the Spanish.
May be we should have a plebiscite on whether to have a referendum?
The current constitutional deadlock suits him fine... it keeps SLAB buried in the ground, and means Starmer gets asked the same awkward questions about the SNP as Ed was.
The fact that his employment will last for about 35 seconds after Boris is replaced as PM means he’s not in charge
The next general election will determine whether voters are happy to keep WTO terms Brexit or a basic FTA under Boris if he is re elected or they want closer alignment to the single market if they elect Starmer instead
The Irish have one every time there's a major constitutional change and that's ensured they have been listened to and taken along with the changes.
Brexit is clearly a major constitutional change.
Headline - 38
7 Day - 31
Yesterday - 2
As ever last 3-5 days will be revised. last five days are included for completeness.
For example, "Marti Pellow is a good singer. Ronan Keating is quite a good singer."
If someone says this, I would suggest that they consider Pellow to be a better singer than Keating. Per you, it's the other way around.
That's odd. It's not going on the list, but it is odd.
Assumption 2 is probably wrong - I agree that no UK government can really prevent indyref2 forever (are we going to deploy the army to seize Scottish polling stations?), but equally I doubt whether Scots would choose the risks of independence if they've been liberated from a Conservative government that they see as hostile. An amicable Lab-SNP arrangement which led to an agreed indyref2 is paradoxially inimical to the chances of its success.
Assumption 3 is also wrong in the long term - the world is full of examples of the fact that electorates opt for change sooner or later.
The most likely outcome seems to me to be a minority Labour Government with SNP support in exchange for an indyref2 towards the end of the 5-year cycle (i.e. 2029). None of us can reasonably be sure how Scots (or anyone) will feel in 2029, but I doubt if independence would be the result.