politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The end of the honeymoon
Options
Comments
-
One possible outcome to an SNP victory might be a Royal Commission on the constitution with a wide ranging brief. That would legitimately block a second ref for a while and should appeal to Cummings as the constitution, governance and administration need to be looked at as a whole.
Personally I think we are overdue political and constitutional reform. I'd welcome devo max as the outcome as long as we don't get too many layers of government inside England. Foreign policy, armed forces, immigration and overall borrowing limits linked to common central bank and currency remain UK national responsibilities, everything else devolved.0 -
When looking at the result in 1997, you have to remember the 1992 election. About the only group who realised before the election, that the polls in 1992 were skewed to Labour, were Major's advisors. Most of the country thought that Kinnock would be PM perhaps in a coalition, and well over half of the country was shocked by the result.stodge said:On to matters political, I think what some are forgetting is after 14 years in opposition the non-Conservative parties will be anxious to get their snouts in the trough (if I'm not being overtly cynical) just as the Conservatives and LDs were after 13 years of Labour rule.
Labour, SNP, LDs and Greens and others will make a non-Conservative Government work because they will have no option. They will be helped by the Conservatives trying to work out what to do next after 14 years in Government.
While I don't think a 1997-style wipeout is inconceivable next time, I do think IF the Conservatives get back, there will, after 19 years, be a significant move away from them in 2029.
...
By 1997 no-one who had been disappointed by 1992 was going to let that happen again. It was THE election for tactical voting. The determination to get the Labour and LD vote out was huge. It was the one last heave and we all heaved in the same direction.
My perception (at least from afar) is that post 2019 feels much more like post 1987 ("bloody hell lost again") than 1992 ("right, how can we make damn sure the &*$%§ don't get back in again"). I'm not discounting a Labour win next time, but I really can't see a landslide Labour win.
1 -
Ha ha, not at all. I just want Scotland to have a chance to rejoin the organisation they voted overwhelmingly not to leave in 2016. What England and Wales do is up to them, as it should be. It's odd that you would consider Scottish independence as humiliating for the English, let alone the Welsh.HYUFD said:
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 wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
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.nico67 said: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 !
From a personal point of view I will get a Scottish/EU passport so I am not that fussed whether England decides to rejoin the EU or not.0 -
But whilst the 2024 election might be the first official opportunity the public get to vote on this, that's not practical politics.HYUFD said:
Brexit already happened in January.Stuartinromford said:
I don't see how that works.HYUFD said:
No we won't, we will only know what it looks like until 2024.Philip_Thompson said:
We will know what Brexit looks like by New Years Day when the transition period ends.HYUFD said:
8 years is not a generation on any definition.Philip_Thompson said:
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.HYUFD said:
The second Quebec referendum took place 15 years after the first not only 6 years afterPhilip_Thompson said:
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.HYUFD said:
No, even if a second referendum was won the SNP would be pushing for indyref3 within 5 minutes.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.HYUFD said:
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthrougMexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.Mexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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
If BoJo's Brexit goes well, Labour aren't going to talk about Europe at all. The UK's new status will settle, and rejoining even the single market will be a strange thing that even Liberal Democrats only talk about furtively.
If Brexit goes badly in 2021, it would require an unimaginable degree of stupidity to keep it as the policy for the next three years. It doesn't matter what the manifesto says. Think back to the poll tax- proposed in the 1987 manifesto, dead in 1992. (The last bills were sent out in April 1992, but the council tax legislation was passed before the election).
For the 2024 proposals to be Single Market vs. basic FTA, both of those have to still be live possibilities. Much as it might help the Conservatives, that's pretty unlikely.0 -
That could be one way forward. The Scottish Parliament could unilaterally enact that, I think. But holding a unilateral referendum tout court, even if it were legal, would not be credible as it is likely to be boycotted by unionists and so to lose legitimacy.Charles said:
...
May be we should have a plebiscite on whether to have a referendum?0 -
Why do you oppose Sindy? No skin off your nose, as far as I can see. On the contrary. Makes it all the easier to imagine an England succumbing to your type of politics for the foreseeable future.BluestBlue said:
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...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Who said political satire was dead?BluestBlue said:
No? The argument seems to go:OnlyLivingBoy said:
We're not the ones holding the gun.BluestBlue said:
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.HYUFD said:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last yearOldKingCole said:
"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.HYUFD said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nastyHYUFD said:
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.OldKingCole said:
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?HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
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!
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.0 -
Why should there be a clear majority demand for a referendum - or any other change - to take place? Ignoring the wishes of large minorities is not a good way forward for democracy - that is simply tyranny of the majority.Charles said:
The claim was there is clear majority demand for a referendumydoethur said:
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.'Charles said: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.
Edit - Andrea Jenkyns. Could not remember her name. Kept confusing her with Leadsom.0 -
Not on the same topicPhilip_Thompson said:
As often as necessary.Charles said:
How frequently should there be referendums on a single topic?Philip_Thompson said:
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.Charles said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.HYUFD said:
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthrougMexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.Mexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
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 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.0 -
What's your evidence for that?Charles said:
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.nico67 said: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 !
The last specific polling in Feb had 32% SNP voters wanting a second referendum now, 37% in 2021 or 2022 after the Holyrood elections, 21% within the next 5 years, 7% within 20 years and 3% never. Among the population in general that break down was 17%, 23%, 15%, 17% and 27%.0 -
The SNP is the single largest party in Scotland. But they are not a majority.TimT said:
Why should there be a clear majority demand for a referendum - or any other change - to take place? Ignoring the wishes of large minorities is not a good way forward for democracy - that is simply tyranny of the majority.Charles said:
The claim was there is clear majority demand for a referendumydoethur said:
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.'Charles said: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.
Edit - Andrea Jenkyns. Could not remember her name. Kept confusing her with Leadsom.
They had a vote in 2014. They lost. Their chance will come again but it is unreasonable for them to insist on trying to revisit the decision of the last vote so soon.1 -
Based on the general presumption that a vote for a party at an election does not necessarily mean unthinking support for all their policiesTheuniondivvie said:
What's your evidence for that?Charles said:
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.nico67 said: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 !
The last specific polling in Feb had 32% SNP voters wanting a second referendum now, 37% in 2021 or 2022 after the Holyrood elections, 21% within the next 5 years, 7% within 20 years and 3% never. Among the population in general that break down was 17%, 23%, 15%, 17% and 27%.0 -
It all depends on how our world beating government cope with the aftermath of Covid and Brexit.eristdoof said:
When looking at the result in 1997, you have to remember the 1992 election. About the only group who realised before the election, that the polls in 1992 were skewed to Labour, were Major's advisors. Most of the country thought that Kinnock would be PM perhaps in a coalition, and well over half of the country was shocked by the result.stodge said:On to matters political, I think what some are forgetting is after 14 years in opposition the non-Conservative parties will be anxious to get their snouts in the trough (if I'm not being overtly cynical) just as the Conservatives and LDs were after 13 years of Labour rule.
Labour, SNP, LDs and Greens and others will make a non-Conservative Government work because they will have no option. They will be helped by the Conservatives trying to work out what to do next after 14 years in Government.
While I don't think a 1997-style wipeout is inconceivable next time, I do think IF the Conservatives get back, there will, after 19 years, be a significant move away from them in 2029.
...
By 1997 no-one who had been disappointed by 1992 was going to let that happen again. It was THE election for tactical voting. The determination to get the Labour and LD vote out was huge. It was the one last heave and we all heaved in the same direction.
My perception (at least from afar) is that post 2019 feels much more like post 1987 ("bloody hell lost again") than 1992 ("right, how can we make damn sure the &*$%§ don't get back in again"). I'm not discounting a Labour win next time, but I really can't see a landslide Labour win.
I think failing big is a greater prospect than either succeeding or failing small.0 -
I well remember how five years ago I suggested Canterbury was a southern seat that might be vulnerable to Labour.NickPalmer said:
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.justin124 said:
Labour won in England - in terms of seats - in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - Oct 1974 -1966 -and 1945algarkirk said:
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.
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.
How everyone scoffed...0 -
NEW THREAD0
-
Unless it's on Lisbon, of course.Charles said:
Not on the same topicPhilip_Thompson said:
As often as necessary.Charles said:
How frequently should there be referendums on a single topic?Philip_Thompson said:
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.Charles said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the union should last more than a generation.HYUFD said:
He will not, he will have preserved the Union tlthrougMexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
If Starmer grants indyref2 in less than a generation the only person risking the break up of the Union is him.Mexicanpete said:
But your boy will have done ALL the heavy lifting to ensure the break up of the Union.HYUFD said:
I could not care less what Starmer does, I am a Tory.Mexicanpete said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 goneMexicanpete said:
I think you are underestimating the bad blood Johnson will have mustered between Westminster and the people of Scotland under your WTO plan.HYUFD said:
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.Mexicanpete said:
Even more sweeping statements. Where has Starmer announced alignment with the single market? Although it would make perfect sense and I doHYUFD said:
A Starmer premiership would align the UK back with the single market within a few months of being elected, maybe even with free movement.Mexicanpete said:
You are making some sweeping assumptions here.HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
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.
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 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
Banning indyref2 for a generation by definition ensures the Union stays together regardless
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 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.0 -
Not if turnout is circa 50%.Philip_Thompson said:
There'll be one Charles. 2021 Holyrood election where its no doubt the #1 issue debated in the election.Charles said:
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.nico67 said: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 !
May be we should have a plebiscite on whether to have a referendum?0 -
Because the UK without Scotland would be different. And I don't like things to be differentkinabalu said:
Why do you oppose Sindy? No skin off your nose, as far as I can see. On the contrary. Makes it all the easier to imagine an England succumbing to your type of politics for the foreseeable future.BluestBlue said:
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...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Who said political satire was dead?BluestBlue said:
No? The argument seems to go:OnlyLivingBoy said:
We're not the ones holding the gun.BluestBlue said:
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.HYUFD said:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last yearOldKingCole said:
"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.HYUFD said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nastyHYUFD said:
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.OldKingCole said:
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?HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
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!
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.
But you're quite right that the consolation prize of the Tory majority going up a net 40 seats if Scotland's MPs evaporated tomorrow would soften the blow considerably.
2 -
Ah, presumption over evidence.Charles said:
Based on the general presumption that a vote for a party at an election does not necessarily mean unthinking support for all their policiesTheuniondivvie said:
What's your evidence for that?Charles said:
Many SNP voters don’t want a referendum particularly - they are voting on other subjects.nico67 said: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 !
The last specific polling in Feb had 32% SNP voters wanting a second referendum now, 37% in 2021 or 2022 after the Holyrood elections, 21% within the next 5 years, 7% within 20 years and 3% never. Among the population in general that break down was 17%, 23%, 15%, 17% and 27%.
Even though I live in Scotland and am a member of the SNP, I'd still rather have evidence over a feeling in my (or your) water.0 -
If you think the sort of action that Spain took in Catalonia would be in any way acceptable to people in the UK - and I mean both in Scotland and the rest of the Union - then you really don't understand this country.HYUFD said:
The Spanish have shown in Catalonia illegal indyrefs can be ignored.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Who said political satire was dead?BluestBlue said:
No? The argument seems to go:OnlyLivingBoy said:
We're not the ones holding the gun.BluestBlue said:
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.HYUFD said:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last yearOldKingCole said:
"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.HYUFD said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nastyHYUFD said:
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.OldKingCole said:
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?HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
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!
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 the UK Government started using force to prevent voting, beating up voters, arresting the leaders of parties seeking independence and handing down long prison terms for them then you would see millions of people on the streets both north and south of the border. Any government trying that in this country would be completely destroyed.2 -
I am not opposed to an English Parliament in a Federal UKwilliamglenn said:
You don't even think England should have its own parliament.HYUFD said:
Or in other words force England to become a mere province of a Federal EU, with the Euro at alwilliamglenn said:
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.HYUFD said:
You do, you want to use it to force England back into the EUwilliamglenn said:
Why do you think Scottish independence would be humiliating for England?HYUFD said:
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 wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
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.nico67 said: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 !0 -
Thanks. Very interesting analysis, though I think my 3 propositions are some way short of impossible.NickPalmer said:
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.justin124 said:
Labour won in England - in terms of seats - in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - Oct 1974 -1966 -and 1945algarkirk said:
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.
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.
0 -
The polling shows Tory voters overwhelmingly oppose indyref2 (over 90% of them in Scotland), we have a Tory majority government and it will implement the will of its voters to respect the fact the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation voteRichard_Tyndall said:
If you think the sort of action that Spain took in Catalonia would be in any way acceptable to people in the UK - and I mean both in Scotland and the rest of the Union - then you really don't understand this country.HYUFD said:
The Spanish have shown in Catalonia illegal indyrefs can be ignored.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Who said political satire was dead?BluestBlue said:
No? The argument seems to go:OnlyLivingBoy said:
We're not the ones holding the gun.BluestBlue said:
An odd argument from independence supporters. I find that the best way to win a game of Russian roulette is not to play it...OnlyLivingBoy said:
Please maintain that attitude, it is invaluable in hastening Scottish independence.HYUFD said:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and must respect the wishes of the UK government elected by a majority last yearOldKingCole said:
"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.HYUFD said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Your language and attitude is so intolerant and at times verges on being nastyHYUFD said:
It would be ignored by Boris and Unionists would be told to boycott it.OldKingCole said:
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?HYUFD said:
Indeed, a Starmer Premiership which returns the UK to the single market effectively ensures Scotland would vote No in any indyref2 anyway.Foxy said:
No, it is impossible to hold Scotland against its wiil, other than in the shortest term.Sandpit said:
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.Black_Rook said:
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.Sandpit said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:Agree with David's post, which I think is fantastic and very astute.
It's possible Labour forms the next Government - but not as a majority. If the Tories lose a total of around 65 seats or more, they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government, even if they have the most seats.
According to, http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour, a 5.63% swing would be needed for that to happen.
With the Tories on 300 seats, Labour on 267, it would be a mess of a Parliament.
SNP would likely take most Scottish seats, so that puts Labour/SNP up to probably 317, Lib Dems take a few and there's a technical majority of anti-Tory votes. In this scenario, I don't feel there would be a formal arrangement, I suspect Labour would dare the other parties to vote their policies down.
Of course the best thing for Labour is to get the Lib Dems on more seats. The less reliant on SNP seats, the better - and the easier it is for the Tory majority to tumble with less Labour gains.
Ergo, they need some kind of pact, even if unofficial.
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.
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.
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.
The likeliest scenario for a Scottish Yes vote is WTO terms Brexit under Boris but of course Boris will refuse to grant indyref2 anyway
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.
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
If you dislike what you voted for you should not have voted for that Tory manifesto
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!
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 the UK Government started using force to prevent voting, beating up voters, arresting the leaders of parties seeking independence and handing down long prison terms for them then you would see millions of people on the streets both north and south of the border. Any government trying that in this country would be completely destroyed.0 -
Can I ask a different question - would you support further devolution of powers from Westminster and Whitehall to the existing tier of local Government whether it be County or District Councils?HYUFD said:
I am not opposed to an English Parliament in a Federal UK
We don't need an English Parliament or Regional Parliaments - we need to provide proper authority and autonomy to the structures we already have.
0 -
My 7/1 tip on Valtteri Bottas to win the race is looking rather good...0
-
And government policy was to discharge patients even if they were infected.Charles said:
Except that’s not true.rottenborough said:
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.CarlottaVance said: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.
The data wasn’t collected but hospital policy was to test0
This discussion has been closed.