After a disappointing set of results for LAB one figure appears to have bucked the trend – political

El_Capitano said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
3m
Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.

Night of the Long Knives

Rather that than Night of the Long Baileys.

Translation for clueless colonial?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

El_Capitano said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
3m
Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.

Night of the Long Knives

Rather that than Night of the Long Baileys.

Translation for clueless colonial?

Rebecca Long-Bailey.

MrEd said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
It is not just a big urban centre.

As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.

The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.

Alistair said:

Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.

Dramatic return for Laura Pidcock surely?

RobD said:

Alistair said:

Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

She's finally given in and decided to humor you with your politics obsession?

OR she's the one with all the money!

RochdalePioneers said:

MrEd said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
It is not just a big urban centre.

As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.

The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.

This should be the LibDems moment shouldn’t it? In the old days they’d have been up for a fight in Batley and Spen and could have performed well.

MrEd said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MrEd said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
It is not just a big urban centre.

As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.

The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.

I think AB knows he is finished in national politics

Sky News boosting him like he is some sort of Barack Obama level politician.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

RobD said:

Alistair said:

Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

She's finally given in and decided to humor you with your politics obsession?

OR she's the one with all the money!

A sensible arrangement.

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

With ratings like his.....

Bet those MPs who switched feel pretty stupid right now.

Whereas Ongie MacNeil (who to be brutally frank isn’t the sharpest pencil in the case) will be feeling pretty smug.

MrEd said:

dixiedean said:

Starmer has to go.
Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
So what does he do?
No political instinct at all.

Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)

No. I know. But you take my point.

Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

oh dear

Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675

Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084

One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563

“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.

And my personal favourite

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881

One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.

Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.

52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015

Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

You really are a tool aren't you.

Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.

The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.

But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.

When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

If something is ultra vires it is ultra vires.

Shuffling the Shadow Cabinet is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

tlg86 said:

Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

Nonsense, she displayed that she's a woman of brilliant tastes.

HYUFD said:

nico679 said:

So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2

Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.

That Labour winner of the Merseyside PCC vote is going to be busy. With her colleagues!

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

And DYOR.

Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence

"Bloody Hands" Hawley is way tooooooo toxic, far toooooooo risky.

Plus ticket with TWO flaming a-holes is at least one too many.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

nico679 said:

So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2

Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.

Bums on Westminster seats is all that matters, as Union matters are reserved to Westminster

Even on that, you are still subverting democracy by inventing obsessive nonsense abouty percentage points. Away to Smithfield with you.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Floater said:

oh dear

Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675

Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084

One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563

“I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.

And my personal favourite

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881

One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."

"They would say that, wouldn't they"

And

"We love him for the enemies he's made"

Twitter firestorm..😂😂😂😂😂.. Twitter is not the real world.

Floater said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

Nonsense, she displayed that she's a woman of brilliant tastes.

Does she have shoes similar to yours?

I think she'd get crucified if she wore Louis Vuittons.

Time_to_Leave said:

dixiedean said:

Starmer has to go.
Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
So what does he do?
No political instinct at all.

Yes. Exactly this. The media loves a “party in crisis and internal war” story, and he’s choosing to give it to them.

It could turn out to be quite an astute move. The Party is in crisis anyway after the last few days So why not do what you need to in the aftermath of it to get it out the way ?

PoodleInASlipstream said:

RochdalePioneers said:

When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.

I thought the secretary of state for Scotland has to actually make that decision though. If they don't intervene it goes for royal ascent.

How in the name of everything fucking holy does Buckinghamshire have 147 Councillors? That must be one for every road....

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Notice how by sacking Rayner, the conversation has shifted (somewhat) away from Labour's thrashing in it's (former) heartlands, and to Starmer versus the Labour left?

MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.

You're not suggesting un chat mort, are you?

Casino_Royale said:

Even if Starmer is serious about doing Whatever It Takes you don't do it like this.

....when he could have done it through the medium of interpretive dance.....

https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1391096956869611525

Everyone on politics Twitter loves a good Labour civil war

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.

Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.

52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015

Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

You really are a tool aren't you.

Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.

The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.

But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.

Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.

I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.

Joan McAlpine lost her seat in South of Scotland

state_go_away said:

Binface smashes through the 20K barrier to land the ladbrokes bet!

Epic. Absolutely epic!

Alistair said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

South Scotland

3 Con
3 Lab
1 SNP

SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

KA BOOM.

Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?

If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.

I'm sure all the arguments have been deployed on both sides of the question so no point in me putting yet another one on that.

All I'll say is that given Scotland is clearly split right down the middle on independence (ref: John Curtice), the realistic options appear to be limited to either:

1 - do nothing, endure years of the same arguments on both sides and hope it all sorts itself out one day by the pro-indy people getting bored or otherwise, or;
2 - do something to resolve the whole thing, like, say, having a proper discussion on what independence might actually mean for good or for bad and a binary referendum on whether it's wanted or not at the end of that (with, potentially, a confirmatory referendum at the end given we've all learned a truckload from the Brexit experience), or;
3 - do something else that actually nobody at all wants but is seen to be trying to somehow appeal to both sides (FEDERALISM KLAXON)

Only the fact that 1) is essentially mutually beneficial to both SNP and Conservative, at least in the short-to-medium term, is why that'll be the route we end up going down.

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.

Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.

52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015

Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

You really are a tool aren't you.

Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.

The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.

But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.

Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.

I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.

Parliamentary seats is the issue for the Unionists.

Almost none at Westminster.
MInority at Holyrood.

To argue for ang other criterion subverts the entire working of Westminster as a representative democracy, as per Bagehot et aliis.

MarqueeMark said:

That Labour winner of the Merseyside PCC vote is going to be busy. With her colleagues!

There's been very little comment on the Liverpool mayoral election. Don't know anything about the winner (Joanne Anderson no relation) Can't help but feel they could have done with an outsider though rather than a Labour figure.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I missed this interview on CH4 News with Starmer from a few days ago...its more cringe than even Ed Miliband.

https://youtu.be/nBXrZKSNWN0

Horrendous. He is worse than I thought, and I feel a bit sorry for him

AndreaParma_82 said:

Joan McAlpine lost her seat in South of Scotland

Oh, I am so upset, boo hoo hoo. A devastating tragedy.

Sturgeon must be heart broken.

It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer's thinking was:

1) We are losing all the Red Wall because of Brexit and culture wars and stuff.
2) They like big strong men (like Boris) and don't like women or foreigners very much, obvs
3) I'll show them I'm a big strong man too.. hmm, wonder how..
4) I know! I will sack all the women - ha!

I'm not sure I'm joking.

RochdalePioneers said:

PoodleInASlipstream said:

RochdalePioneers said:

When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.

It has to be overruled by the SofS or thrown out by the Supreme Court to have no force in law. Otherwise it becomes law.

Didn’t know about the first one. Surely that dooms it anyway? Is Alister Jack really going to wave it through?

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.

If the price of Rayner’s firing is he has to hang on to Dodds, I don’t care what Rayner was doing he’s made the wrong choice.

It could be a "it's not a demotion- counting the little sticky labels we use on the window posters is a vital job, and you're just the person to do it" type of non demotion.

(I can see why Dodds might be useful to have around- she seems smart. But she's visibly wilting in her current position; she needs a thinking job out of the limelight.)

More importantly- for most of my life, ability to run a political party effectively was a reasonable proxy for potential to be OK at government. This stuff isn't that difficult. Is it too much to ask for one party that isn't run by idiotic chancers who are too clever by half?

Alistair said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

South Scotland

3 Con
3 Lab
1 SNP

SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

KA BOOM.

Well called.

NEW: George Galloway humbled after failing to get elected to Holyrood.

SNP source says: "His hat had more chance of being elected."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/george-galloway-fails-latest-bid-24068268