I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
Conversely, those of us in England who'd love to get rid of them are fully aware of how much they'd lose. Both the freebies they currently get, and some things they consider their own (financial services) which are parked there only as long as they're sponging off England.
Probably the daftest thing I've read recently is the Nat belief that Scotland will get rich flogging the UK green electricity from renewables, now that belief that getting rich from selling oil at $100+ a barrel is gone. There is simply no need for the rUK to rely on Scotland for electricity, and indeed the biggest projects in the UK are being built in "English" waters.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
» show previous quotes Don't worry too much, Scotland is a nation of bottlers. You will once again vote for the apron strings. It's a nation that likes to talk but won't vote to lose all of the UK funded sweeties like free prescriptions and free university tuition.
bollox , you lying dumb horse's arse PS: At least we are not Richard pullers. @MaxPB
Lol. I'm happy either way, if you vote to leave the UK then good luck to you and a nice saving from my tax bill, if you don't then it will be hilarious to watch all of you William Wallace types cry into your whisky.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
No.
I am assuming SKS will also lose Airdrie & Shotts next week (a pretty safe bet), But, if the SNP boot Labour out of the park with a massive increase in the majority, then the stench of failure will become overwhelming.
No doubt with SKS's plebian touch, he has lined up Ms Alastriona Meeks as PPC for this 60 per cent Leave constituency.
Tbh, SKS's position looks pretty hopeless, even if Labour just about hang on in B&S.
Horse is more inclined towards questioning those in and of his party than some on here.
Pots and kettles, Casino?
To be fair, despite his relentless and slightly unhinged obsession with woke, Casino did vote LibDem this time, so you can’t accuse him of being one of the fanboys!
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are we so sure? Batley is not Hartlepool - the main third party there at the last election was a local independent group, not BXP. Do they stand again, and if not do their votes necessarily tilt towards any single other party?
The Hartlepool electorate is also white as the driven snow. Batley & Spen is, according to the 2011 Census data, which presumably aren't too out-of-date, about 20% Asian, nearly all of whom are Muslim. That demographic strongly favours Labour.
As I understand it the elected mayor in West Yorkshire is not the police commissioner. Before the election they had to nominate another person who would take that role.
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
I see the Burning Pink party achieved the honour of the wooden spoon candidate in the London Mayoral election.
Apparently they are a split from Extinction Rebellion who want to replace the government with citizen's assemblies - I wonder how anarchists who want to replace government woth citizen's assemblies think when they the actual citizens, despite being pretty cynical about government, place you dead last well behind joke candidates, conspiracy theorists, youtubers, far right zombie parties and single issue parties.
I know not everyone can be Count Binface, alas, but it'd be a humbling experience.
Fox Jr2 voted Niko, who cams top of the minnows with his policy "to make Boris shush!".
I'd not heard of him, but he is apparently a well known YouTube prankster, such as this at an EDL rally.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
I see the Burning Pink party achieved the honour of the wooden spoon candidate in the London Mayoral election.
Apparently they are a split from Extinction Rebellion who want to replace the government with citizen's assemblies - I wonder how anarchists who want to replace government woth citizen's assemblies think when they the actual citizens, despite being pretty cynical about government, place you dead last well behind joke candidates, conspiracy theorists, youtubers, far right zombie parties and single issue parties.
I know not everyone can be Count Binface, alas, but it'd be a humbling experience.
For you and most folks, yes.
But NOT for a true individualist of courage, dedication & determination, like Lieutenant Commander William George Boaks DSC.
Who was on the ballot in general & by-elections over two dozen times between 1951 to 1982. campaigning doggedly (obviously) for road safety.
Largest vote Commader Boaks ever got was 174 (Walthamstow East 1951); lowest (tied for the record) was 5 (Glasgow Hillhead 1982)
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
Matt SIngh: The availability of election data in Britain really is a disgrace. It would not be difficult or expensive to have councils enter results data in to a common spreadsheet linked to a central database
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
As I understand it the elected mayor in West Yorkshire is not the police commissioner. Before the election they had to nominate another person who would take that role.
I imagine that the role will be effectively parcelled out to a deputy mayor - but the mayor themselves would be, as a consequence, ultimately responsible for the exercise of their powers.
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
Matt SIngh: The availability of election data in Britain really is a disgrace. It would not be difficult or expensive to have councils enter results data in to a common spreadsheet linked to a central database
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
Even with aid of spreadsheet, think if I was responsible for tabulating the final, official result, I'd check the figures by some alternative method.
Provided I didn't have to take off my shoes to do the math!
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are we so sure? Batley is not Hartlepool - the main third party there at the last election was a local independent group, not BXP. Do they stand again, and if not do their votes necessarily tilt towards any single other party?
The Hartlepool electorate is also white as the driven snow. Batley & Spen is, according to the 2011 Census data, which presumably aren't too out-of-date, about 20% Asian, nearly all of whom are Muslim. That demographic strongly favours Labour.
apparently that independent group were very pro brexit - so if they were to step aside...
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
No.
I am assuming SKS will also lose Airdrie & Shotts next week (a pretty safe bet), But, if the SNP boot Labour out of the park with a massive increase in the majority, then the stench of failure will become overwhelming.
No doubt with SKS's plebian touch, he has lined up Ms Alastriona Meeks as PPC for this 60 per cent Leave constituency.
Tbh, SKS's position looks pretty hopeless, even if Labour just about hang on in B&S.
Which just brings us back round the question of how much of Labour's mediocre performance is down to the leader, and how much is down to it being Labour.
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
They don't have to be leave-voting, they just need to be someone without a Twitter feed or internet presence to pick over. At that point they can simply lie about what they voted for. Of course that rules out pretty much everyone currently associated with Labour.
As I understand it the elected mayor in West Yorkshire is not the police commissioner. Before the election they had to nominate another person who would take that role.
I thought that they had the option of appointing a Deputy Mayor to take on the policing role, rather than it being a requirement?
What's happening in Bristol could be the start of something existential for Labour.
The risk is that they drop down to 20-25% of the vote and only 120-130 seats.
The Democrats have the advantage in the USA that they hoover up all the Left, just as the Republicans do the Right. Here, under FPTP, the British Left is segmented, whilst the Tories have feasted on all their rivals.
If you merged the LDs, Labour and Greens together (and SNP, for that matter) you could probably get up to 40% of the vote here most of the time. But, it won't happen because our political landscape and history is different.
Conservative rule in perpetuity?
Occasional "re-inventions" to mark a change of direction but it's the same party always in power?
I'm not sure politics works that way - at some point the Conservatives will lose power and when that happens they will be the ones facing the existential crisis as they try to figure out how to do opposition to a new genuinely popular Government.
I'm reminded of how "effective" the Conservatives were in opposition from 1997-2005.
No, not least because the current Conservative coalition isn't static, tactical voting will develop, and, at some point, a new threat to the Tories right-flank will re-emerge.
Going too radical on climate change being the most obvious one.
The Tories are safe from the right. Johnson owns the populist right, the far right almost invariably goes down like a cup of cold sick in Britain, and there's no clamour for an economically dry alternative. Insofar as I can see, in those few areas where the Tories have suffered local Government reverses on their home turf in these elections, the main beneficiaries have been the Lib Dems.
High-immigration levels and sleepwalking into puritanism on climate change are two traps I could see the Tories falling into.
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
If this non sacking/re-shuffle debacle is the end of Sir Keir, his disciples will argue forever more that, had he made it to a GE, people would have come round to his forensic approach. This is the perfect way out for them not to have to admit they were wrong!
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
How the Electoral Commission may insist the question is put:
That'll be confusing after years of the SNP saying all true Scotsmen are for Remain
Is it just me or is someone who answers this question differently from Should Scotland be an independent country: Yes or no, simply demonstrating that they are too stupid to be allowed a vote at all? Indeed how the hell do they get dressed in the morning?
It’s human nature to favour positive action (“yes”) while eschewing risk (“remain”)
And yet, the last two referendums that used those choices went "No" / "Leave"
I see the Burning Pink party achieved the honour of the wooden spoon candidate in the London Mayoral election.
Apparently they are a split from Extinction Rebellion who want to replace the government with citizen's assemblies - I wonder how anarchists who want to replace government woth citizen's assemblies think when they the actual citizens, despite being pretty cynical about government, place you dead last well behind joke candidates, conspiracy theorists, youtubers, far right zombie parties and single issue parties.
I know not everyone can be Count Binface, alas, but it'd be a humbling experience.
For you and most folks, yes.
But NOT for a true individualist of courage, dedication & determination, like Lieutenant Commander William George Boaks DSC.
Who was on the ballot in general & by-elections over two dozen times between 1951 to 1982. campaigning doggedly (obviously) for road safety.
Largest vote Commader Boaks ever got was 174 (Walthamstow East 1951); lowest (tied for the record) was 5 (Glasgow Hillhead 1982)
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
Labour might ask this question: In the long run if you had a forced choice knowing all you know now, is it better to make an indirect assault on Chesham and Amersham by getting the LDs to win it or to directly attack a northern wall target (ie hold!) in Batley, which target seems to be rapidly running away from you.
One would have always said Batley - obvious. But this set of results invites the question and possibly a different answer. The LDs come second a lot of tory seats in the south which are looking less content with Boris.
Matt SIngh: The availability of election data in Britain really is a disgrace. It would not be difficult or expensive to have councils enter results data in to a common spreadsheet linked to a central database
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
Others still will be the FBPE contingent, still madder than a sack of squirrels about Brexit and the failure of anything to go their way since. Boris won, Dom Cummings has still not been outed as a Kremlin asset, the vaccine rollout was a roaring success — with each fresh humiliation they have grown embittered and more impotently vengeful. They desperately want something to go wrong and independence is particularly attractive given the crossover between Continuity Remain and the sort of metropolitan progressive who longs to be able to vote for Nicola Sturgeon. (They never seem to long for the outcomes she produces for those of us who live in Scotland.)
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
Ironically, the changing demographic of voters may well make photo ID favour Labour.
Middle class professionals all have it, retired WWC much less so.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
Labour might ask this question: In the long run if you had a forced choice knowing all you know now, is it better to make an indirect assault on Chesham and Amersham by getting the LDs to win it or to directly attack a northern wall target (ie hold!) in Batley, which target seems to be rapidly running away from you.
One would have always said Batley - obvious. But this set of results invites the question and possibly a different answer. The LDs come second a lot of tory seats in the south which are looking less content with Boris.
I'm beginning to think that without its industrial northern base the Labour Party cannot exist as an electoral force. The Labour Party can never fully commit to being the party for wealthy southern remainers because of the union influence so will never win enough of them to compensate.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
Conversely, those of us in England who'd love to get rid of them are fully aware of how much they'd lose. Both the freebies they currently get, and some things they consider their own (financial services) which are parked there only as long as they're sponging off England.
Probably the daftest thing I've read recently is the Nat belief that Scotland will get rich flogging the UK green electricity from renewables, now that belief that getting rich from selling oil at $100+ a barrel is gone. There is simply no need for the rUK to rely on Scotland for electricity, and indeed the biggest projects in the UK are being built in "English" waters.
This is true, of course. Once one sets aside the Trident problem, Scottish independence would be vastly easier for the Government in London to deal with than Welsh independence. Most of the border is defined by rivers and, insofar as I'm aware, no communities would be chopped in half as a consequence. The civil infrastructure is also pretty much discrete, whereas parts of England rely on water supply from Wales, and transport connections between North and South Wales largely run through England.
In the event of independence, Scotland can be regarded almost as an island unto itself. It shouldn't even be too difficult to establish the necessary border infrastructure. Patrol boats on the Tweed, minor connecting roads sealed off, customs posts established along the major routes if the nature of the relationship mandates them. It's doable.
I see the Burning Pink party achieved the honour of the wooden spoon candidate in the London Mayoral election.
Apparently they are a split from Extinction Rebellion who want to replace the government with citizen's assemblies - I wonder how anarchists who want to replace government woth citizen's assemblies think when they the actual citizens, despite being pretty cynical about government, place you dead last well behind joke candidates, conspiracy theorists, youtubers, far right zombie parties and single issue parties.
I know not everyone can be Count Binface, alas, but it'd be a humbling experience.
For you and most folks, yes.
But NOT for a true individualist of courage, dedication & determination, like Lieutenant Commander William George Boaks DSC.
Who was on the ballot in general & by-elections over two dozen times between 1951 to 1982. campaigning doggedly (obviously) for road safety.
Largest vote Commader Boaks ever got was 174 (Walthamstow East 1951); lowest (tied for the record) was 5 (Glasgow Hillhead 1982)
Commander Boaks and Screaming Lord Sutch apparently got on like a house on fire whenever they happened to be standing in the same election. At least according to SLS's (ghosted) autobiography "Life as Sutch".
For example, the gallant Commander warned His Lordhip to ALWAYS keep his eye peeled on his bundle (or small pile) of votes during counts, because he suspected that he'd been shortchanged by conniving and/or clueless election workers.
Who he believed (probably correctly) did NOT have much respect for seriously minor parties like OMRLP and idiosyncratic independents such as himself.
🚨🌹 | NEW: A senior Labour figure told a meeting with the leader’s office that Angela Rayner was “dressed inappropriately” on a visit to Hartlepool. She was wearing leopard-print trousers, heavy-duty stomper boots and a hoodie
She could dress like a Dalek for all I care, although that might prove cumbersome.
I'd like to see politics governed by facts, by reasoned argument, and by people who honestly try to keep their word, in so far as those things be humanly possible. I wonder which politicians have valiantly tried to do these.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
Looking at the results in the M25 outer edge, Amersham & Chesham looks interesting. I'm sure the Tories would be odds on to hold it, but it could see a very strong Lib Dem performance.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Didn't a marginal majority back parties advocating a "People's Vote" in GE 2019?
Yet, because there was a Partliamentary majority for Brexit, it happened.
Once again Unionists are having to do a reverse ferret over reasons that Brexit had to happen.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed. Mrs Thatcher after all accepted up fromt that a simple majority of SNP MPs was sufficient to trigger independence (implicitly, but there being no other criterion of political success that she would accept). Bot today has been an absolute masterclass in toddlerism.
Aaron Bastani with a straight face bemoaned the right of Labour being mainly interested in slagging off the left and "factional fights"
Followed by 40 minutes of slagging off the Starmer wing of the party - including stating (and naming individuals) that the leaders office is incompetent.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
Matt SIngh: The availability of election data in Britain really is a disgrace. It would not be difficult or expensive to have councils enter results data in to a common spreadsheet linked to a central database
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I would say that even today's poll is a much stronger starting position than the last Sindyref.
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
Big Money = Free Speech! Or so says SCOTUS.
Well we know from Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade that SCOTUS is not infallible
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
Er, only up to a point. The SNP have urged it for Westminster.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
Great! How do the people of Scotland get the law changed? Specifically. England can say no forever and there's nothing that Scotland can do about it.
Matt SIngh: The availability of election data in Britain really is a disgrace. It would not be difficult or expensive to have councils enter results data in to a common spreadsheet linked to a central database
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
Sure, but it's then input into a spreadsheet!
Or other way around, as I suggested upthread.
Saw that happen in frustration at a count once, don't know why not done more.
Worth bearing in mind SKS started with very positive ratings last year, and very good leadership ratings vis-a-vis Boris: he certainly looked the part; people were open-minded.
It's what happened as people got to know him and his style that's the issue.
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
Yes, but the latter would be no more binding than 'once in a generation'. Not necessarily disagreeing with your major point however.
Worth bearing in mind SKS started with very positive ratings last year, and very good leadership ratings vis-a-vis Boris: he certainly looked the part; people were open-minded.
It's what happened as people got to know him and his style that's the issue.
A beautiful, soft, elegantly warm evening, the first of the year. Camden is alive with happy drinkers, mellow and giggly. My daughters are growing and healthy and in their eager early teens. They laugh at me, as is only right
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed. Mrs Thatcher after all accepted up fromt that a simple majority of SNP MPs was sufficient to trigger independence (implicitly, but there being no other criterion of political success that she would accept). Bot today has been an absolute masterclass in toddlerism.
Another view is the toddlers are those whose party didn't win a majority.....
It's unquestionable that Mayors have been a bright spot for Labour.
One can overdo it though. It allows individuals to set out their own platforms somewhat semi-detached from their party labels.
They are big in the cities, it shouldn't be a surprise really
For the most part, yes.
The Labour victory in Cambridgeshire is an obvious exception, but that's down to the Pale of Cambridge effect again. The plump pigeon of proportional representation is flying high once more in posh Remainia in the county's South. They returned a strong third place for the Lib Dem candidate; most of their second prefs appear to have gone Labour.
This may not recur, of course, if the Government legislates to get rid of the Supplementary Vote.
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
More identity politics in selecting the leader to match the identity politics they can't stop talking about?
I presume you're trying to throw them off the scent here.
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
Er, only up to a point. The SNP have urged it for Westminster.
Interesting point. That would clearly rest in fewer SNP MPs. But it would make majority government pretty unlikely, therefore significantly increasing the influence of that reduced number of SNP MPs.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed. Mrs Thatcher after all accepted up fromt that a simple majority of SNP MPs was sufficient to trigger independence (implicitly, but there being no other criterion of political success that she would accept). Bot today has been an absolute masterclass in toddlerism.
Another view is the toddlers are those whose party didn't win a majority.....
[Edit] As we are talking about Unionism and non-Unionism then it's been amp[ly deminstrated bt RP and DavidL that your implicit suggestion is wrong.
I see the Burning Pink party achieved the honour of the wooden spoon candidate in the London Mayoral election.
Apparently they are a split from Extinction Rebellion who want to replace the government with citizen's assemblies - I wonder how anarchists who want to replace government woth citizen's assemblies think when they the actual citizens, despite being pretty cynical about government, place you dead last well behind joke candidates, conspiracy theorists, youtubers, far right zombie parties and single issue parties.
I know not everyone can be Count Binface, alas, but it'd be a humbling experience.
For you and most folks, yes.
But NOT for a true individualist of courage, dedication & determination, like Lieutenant Commander William George Boaks DSC.
Who was on the ballot in general & by-elections over two dozen times between 1951 to 1982. campaigning doggedly (obviously) for road safety.
Largest vote Commader Boaks ever got was 174 (Walthamstow East 1951); lowest (tied for the record) was 5 (Glasgow Hillhead 1982)
Dogged campaigners seeking attention not the same as would be firebrand revolutionaries being disappointed by the reality of life though.
Sometimes, indeed pretty frequently, the revolutionaries and revolutionary ideas of one generation, become the establishmentarians and orthodoxies of the furture.
Example of #1: Bolsheviks.
Example of #2: Screaming Lord Sutch's pledge in his first by-election to give 18-year olds the vote.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Didn't a marginal majority back parties advocating a "People's Vote" in GE 2019?
Yet, because there was a Partliamentary majority for Brexit, it happened.
Once again Unionists are having to do a reverse ferret over reasons that Brexit had to happen.
Different things.
If you are legislating then the number of MPs matters. MPs had the legal right and authority to refuse to implement Brexit but I believe that would have been a democratic outrage as they had sought specific instruction from the voters.
The SNP are trying to build a political argument as to why Westminster should grant a further referendum. The composition of the Scottish Parliament is not relevant but the % of votes cast for pro vs anti independence parties is. I just think it is close enough that it is not a compelling argument
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
Great! How do the people of Scotland get the law changed? Specifically. England can say no forever and there's nothing that Scotland can do about it.
That isn't a Union. Its a prison.
It is not rocket science. Scots have a right to self determination but it is not an absolute or unfettered right. As it happens they exercised it very recently. It is not an unfettered right because their interests are not the only interests that exist in the UK. Scotland leaving England creates a national border touching English interests.
If 60% of people voted for SNP/Green and 60% of people consistently polled as wanting independence and 60% of people wanted a referendum now and out now, then it would be the right time to start negotiating the basis of a referendum. It's nowhere close to meeting a rational test. As Nicola well knows.
A beautiful, soft, elegantly warm evening, the first of the year. Camden is alive with happy drinkers, mellow and giggly. My daughters are growing and healthy and in their eager early teens. They laugh at me, as is only right
Life is OK. We have survived
Praise be
Sounds like you might be one of those happy, mellow and giggly drinkers. Good to enjoy things
Conversely, those of us in England who'd love to get rid of them are fully aware of how much they'd lose. Both the freebies they currently get, and some things they consider their own (financial services) which are parked there only as long as they're sponging off England.
Probably the daftest thing I've read recently is the Nat belief that Scotland will get rich flogging the UK green electricity from renewables, now that belief that getting rich from selling oil at $100+ a barrel is gone. There is simply no need for the rUK to rely on Scotland for electricity, and indeed the biggest projects in the UK are being built in "English" waters.
This is true, of course. Once one sets aside the Trident problem, Scottish independence would be vastly easier for the Government in London to deal with than Welsh independence. Most of the border is defined by rivers and, insofar as I'm aware, no communities would be chopped in half as a consequence. The civil infrastructure is also pretty much discrete, whereas parts of England rely on water supply from Wales, and transport connections between North and South Wales largely run through England.
In the event of independence, Scotland can be regarded almost as an island unto itself. It shouldn't even be too difficult to establish the necessary border infrastructure. Patrol boats on the Tweed, minor connecting roads sealed off, customs posts established along the major routes if the nature of the relationship mandates them. It's doable.
There is not going to be Welsh Independence
Indeed Plaid only received 20% of the Senedd vote
Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in Wales all support the union
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Didn't a marginal majority back parties advocating a "People's Vote" in GE 2019?
Yet, because there was a Partliamentary majority for Brexit, it happened.
Once again Unionists are having to do a reverse ferret over reasons that Brexit had to happen.
Different things.
If you are legislating then the number of MPs matters. MPs had the legal right and authority to refuse to implement Brexit but I believe that would have been a democratic outrage as they had sought specific instruction from the voters.
The SNP are trying to build a political argument as to why Westminster should grant a further referendum. The composition of the Scottish Parliament is not relevant but the % of votes cast for pro vs anti independence parties is. I just think it is close enough that it is not a compelling argument
Plus most Scottish Green voters on the constituency vote oppose independence
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
More identity politics in selecting the leader to match the identity politics they can't stop talking about?
I presume you're trying to throw them off the scent here.
I wasn't but it does look like that I guess... "non graduate" could be added to that list to make it less "woke".
But they should be left field. Maybe my examples were lazy stereotypes of left field thinking, seems so old fashioned now, but there still hasnt been any of those boxes ticked as Lab leader.
Labour should be a revolutionary movement for change, not a corporate party concerned about power.. I think I am becoming a Corbynite! Always late to the party
Comments
I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
Highest ever SNP vote
Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority
Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
I am assuming SKS will also lose Airdrie & Shotts next week (a pretty safe bet), But, if the SNP boot Labour out of the park with a massive increase in the majority, then the stench of failure will become overwhelming.
No doubt with SKS's plebian touch, he has lined up Ms Alastriona Meeks as PPC for this 60 per cent Leave constituency.
Tbh, SKS's position looks pretty hopeless, even if Labour just about hang on in B&S.
#Kamasutra
The Hartlepool electorate is also white as the driven snow. Batley & Spen is, according to the 2011 Census data, which presumably aren't too out-of-date, about 20% Asian, nearly all of whom are Muslim. That demographic strongly favours Labour.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
I'd not heard of him, but he is apparently a well known YouTube prankster, such as this at an EDL rally.
https://youtu.be/rsMxZehUR1Y
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
https://twitter.com/scotlandinunion/status/1391462115374944257?s=19
One can overdo it though. It allows individuals to set out their own platforms somewhat semi-detached from their party labels.
But NOT for a true individualist of courage, dedication & determination, like Lieutenant Commander William George Boaks DSC.
Who was on the ballot in general & by-elections over two dozen times between 1951 to 1982. campaigning doggedly (obviously) for road safety.
Largest vote Commader Boaks ever got was 174 (Walthamstow East 1951); lowest (tied for the record) was 5 (Glasgow Hillhead 1982)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Boaks
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
I spent twenty minutes yesterday watching a guy working out my election result using a calculator - one of those large plastic ones with the big buttons - going through all the tally sheets for each candidate and adding the whole lot up over and over until he got the same result twice.
Far too sensible for SKS.
Provided I didn't have to take off my shoes to do the math!
If this non sacking/re-shuffle debacle is the end of Sir Keir, his disciples will argue forever more that, had he made it to a GE, people would have come round to his forensic approach. This is the perfect way out for them not to have to admit they were wrong!
Dogged campaigners seeking attention not the same as would be firebrand revolutionaries being disappointed by the reality of life though.
One would have always said Batley - obvious. But this set of results invites the question and possibly a different answer. The LDs come second a lot of tory seats in the south which are looking less content with Boris.
Nice!
SNP vote - not a majority
MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit
majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Others still will be the FBPE contingent, still madder than a sack of squirrels about Brexit and the failure of anything to go their way since. Boris won, Dom Cummings has still not been outed as a Kremlin asset, the vaccine rollout was a roaring success — with each fresh humiliation they have grown embittered and more impotently vengeful. They desperately want something to go wrong and independence is particularly attractive given the crossover between Continuity Remain and the sort of metropolitan progressive who longs to be able to vote for Nicola Sturgeon. (They never seem to long for the outcomes she produces for those of us who live in Scotland.)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snp-has-no-mandate-for-a-second-referendum
Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
Middle class professionals all have it, retired WWC much less so.
Bring back the Liberal Party...
In the event of independence, Scotland can be regarded almost as an island unto itself. It shouldn't even be too difficult to establish the necessary border infrastructure. Patrol boats on the Tweed, minor connecting roads sealed off, customs posts established along the major routes if the nature of the relationship mandates them. It's doable.
For example, the gallant Commander warned His Lordhip to ALWAYS keep his eye peeled on his bundle (or small pile) of votes during counts, because he suspected that he'd been shortchanged by conniving and/or clueless election workers.
Who he believed (probably correctly) did NOT have much respect for seriously minor parties like OMRLP and idiosyncratic independents such as himself.
I'd like to see politics governed by facts, by reasoned argument, and by people who honestly try to keep their word, in so far as those things be humanly possible. I wonder which politicians have valiantly tried to do these.
I know, I know. I'm nuts.
Yet, because there was a Partliamentary majority for Brexit, it happened.
Once again Unionists are having to do a reverse ferret over reasons that Brexit had to happen.
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
Edit: actually West of England is a stretch. They only won it last time by a smidgen due to the peak of the Maygasm.
Followed by 40 minutes of slagging off the Starmer wing of the party - including stating (and naming individuals) that the leaders office is incompetent.
The deranged bloke from Sedgefield ?
The gruff fellow from Kirkcaldy ?
The nerdy chap from Doncaster ?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
but then I said that about Hartlepool!
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon)
All the courage and the dreams that I have
(but seem to wait so long)
My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide
The dignified don't even enter in the game
And if you feel there's no passion
No quality sensation
Seize the young determination
Show the fakers you ain't foolin
You'll see me come runnin
To the sound of your strummin
Fill my heart with joy and gladness
I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female
Not white
Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
That isn't a Union. Its a prison.
It's what happened as people got to know him and his style that's the issue.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your major point however.
Life is OK. We have survived
Praise be
The Labour victory in Cambridgeshire is an obvious exception, but that's down to the Pale of Cambridge effect again. The plump pigeon of proportional representation is flying high once more in posh Remainia in the county's South. They returned a strong third place for the Lib Dem candidate; most of their second prefs appear to have gone Labour.
This may not recur, of course, if the Government legislates to get rid of the Supplementary Vote.
Hence the #Kamasutra comment - "position"
I presume you're trying to throw them off the scent here.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Example of #1: Bolsheviks.
Example of #2: Screaming Lord Sutch's pledge in his first by-election to give 18-year olds the vote.
If you are legislating then the number of MPs matters. MPs had the legal right and authority to refuse to implement Brexit but I believe that would have been a democratic outrage as they had sought specific instruction from the voters.
The SNP are trying to build a political argument as to why Westminster should grant a further referendum. The composition of the Scottish Parliament is not relevant but the % of votes cast for pro vs anti independence parties is. I just think it is close enough that it is not a compelling argument
Don't think that really works, much as I'd like it to
Shows you the mess the left is in when they can't even get Robin Hood's vote now
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
The former only helps you with a temporary bit of publicity at the start.
If 60% of people voted for SNP/Green and 60% of people consistently polled as wanting independence and 60% of people wanted a referendum now and out now, then it would be the right time to start negotiating the basis of a referendum. It's nowhere close to meeting a rational test. As Nicola well knows.
Indeed Plaid only received 20% of the Senedd vote
Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in Wales all support the union
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
https://archive.ph/eg2lt
But they should be left field. Maybe my examples were lazy stereotypes of left field thinking, seems so old fashioned now, but there still hasnt been any of those boxes ticked as Lab leader.
Labour should be a revolutionary movement for change, not a corporate party concerned about power.. I think I am becoming a Corbynite! Always late to the party