Good riddance and fuck off to Humza “WHITE!!” Yousaf. An odious race baiter and a piece of dreck
I thought as a self confessed racist apparently in fear of being cancelled that you would have some sympathy?
Tut tut
Also *points and sniggers at your party and cause*
Since you hate your party and think your main 'cause', the UK, is a shithole, there's quite a lot of sniggering going on.
Er, they’re really not “my party” not remotely. And absolutely not in the way the SNP is yours
As for “shit-hole” hmm sometimes. Britain can be dreary and yet it can also be sublime. France is definitely more beautiful; British people are funnier; France has nicer towns; we have the English language. England also owns Scotland with its fabulous islands and mountains so yah boo sucks to France
England 'owns' Scotland? Damn good job Malc's not around!
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE THIS WHOLE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO SCOTLAND THING GO AWAY.
No one cares ffs.
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is a United Kingdom politics site. Until and unless that changes, whilst certain people might not care (I don't care about Merbyn Kernow for instance) it's right to discuss it.
If Swinney takes over it is an acknowledgment that the SNP is headed for significant losses. A year ago he said he’d been trying to step down front the frontline since 2016. A new leader would immediately face disaster, Swinney is expendable as he’s already resigned.
There are other explanations. Everyone can see that he's a temporary leader, and so it gives the SNP time to work out who should hear them for the long term, rather than making the decision in a hurry and an atmosphere of crisis.
There is going to be a contest. If Swinney wins, that's it
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
A very weird part of this contest is that the Greens and Alba will essentially be calling the shots in this election. They will be asked for their opinion at every turn. That might have unintended consequences/effects on the way the votes fall, if there is a contest and not a coronation.
For that reason, this isn’t a market I feel very comfortable wading into.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
If she's so inclined to try and change her party she would be more sensible to do so from opposition. I think you're right in that there is no way she could lead the party right now without losing the support of a whole chunk of them.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE THIS WHOLE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO SCOTLAND THING GO AWAY.
No one cares ffs.
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is a United Kingdom politics site. Until and unless that changes, whilst certain people might not care (I don't care about Merbyn Kernow for instance) it's right to discuss it.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
But maybe it'd be better not to rush that. They'll score a decent number of Westminster seats in any event and the next Holyrood isn't until 2026.
During election campaigns the incumbent party has tended to lose ground to the opposition - partly because the latter then receives equal media coverage by broadcasters etc. Swingback as such really only tends to apply to the period leading up to the formal election campaign itself. Hmm. Ydoethur said - 'Not true of 1964, 1970, Oct 1974, 1983, 1992, 1997 or 2005.
I think that’s an oversimplification.'
Re - the examples referred to there.
1964 - The election was announced in Mid-September. In the period to the end of September 5 polls had the Tories ahead with leads ranging from 0.2% to 4.0%. A single random Gallup poll had a Labour lead of 4.5%.. Polling Day was October 15th and only in the final 2 weeks did Labour edge back into the lead it had enjoyed until late Summer. That saw 5 polls with Labour leads in the range of 0.1% to 8% and 4 Tory leads which ranged from 0.8% to 3.6%.. The result on 15th October across GB saw a Labour lead of 1.9% - a better outcome for the party than suggested by most polls a month earlier at the outset of the campaign.The swingback to Douglas-Home and the Tories which had been evident in August and early September had been reversed.
1970 - The election was announced on May 18th to be held on June 18th.In mid- May polls recorded Labour leads in the range of 3.2% - 7.5%.The final week of the campaign saw 6 Labour leads ranging from 2% to 9.6% with a single eve of poll from ORC showing a 1% Tory lead. The result on 18th June was a Tory lead across GB of 2.4% - a clear swing to the Opposition party compared with what polls had implied a month earlier.
Oct 1974 - The election was announced in mid-September to be held on October 10th. Polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 4% -14% whilst a single NOP poll showed a 1% Tory lead. The final week saw Labour leads of 5.5% - 14.5%. The result on October 10th saw a Labour lead in GB of 3.6%. The Labour lead had narrowed during the campaign..
1983 - The election was announced on May 9th to be held on June 9th. At the outset polls recorded Tory leads of 10% - 17.5% . The outcome on 9th June was a Tory GB lead of 15.2% . Whilst that was little changed from the margin indicated a month earlier both major parties lost vote shares during the campaign period to the Alliance. The Labour opposition did not benefit though the the Tories overall lost support during the campaign to the Lib/SDP Alliance
1992 - This election did not fit the pattern at all, but - as was to be the case in 2015 - serious polling methodological issues were later identified. A consensus has emerged to the effect that the Tories were actually ahead throughout both campaigns - and ,for that reason, analysis is difficult and unlikely to be productive.
I see it is Hammer the Disabled Day on Sunak's news grid.
A multi-millionaire (with an even richer wife) hammering the the sick and disabled isn't a good look, is it?
Sunak is very right wing. He believes government is there only to defend the country and ensure the rich keep their wealth. The Conservative Party have previously done a good job of pretending to be on the side of the common man and woman. Sunak's sin is not even to bother to pretend.
"TfL has revealed when the next revamped Central line trains will enter service on the London Underground. The 1992 stock is being upgraded as part of a £500 million programme.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and TfL bosses say a brand new fleet of trains is not possible as they have not been given enough cash by central government. Instead, carriages are being renovated with new seats, LED lighting, CCTV and IT systems.
A new moquette, wheels and motors are also being installed. However, engineers told MyLondon in November that technical constraints mean that it is not possible to fit air conditioning."
Meanwhile, up here in levelling up land, we have Class 150, 156 and 158 DMUs that all entered service prior to 1992.
Ay-up! We have Bakerloo line trains down 'ere in London wot entered service in 1972! Piccadilly line not far behind in 1973.
1997 - This election possibly best fits present circumstances Labour won a landslide majority on1st May and a GB lead of 13% across GB. This was actually well short of the leads being recorded in late March when the election announcement took place when polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 21% - 25.5%. It also bears similarity to what was seen in 1966 , 1983 and was to be seen again in 2001 when massive overwhelming polling leads were not reflected in the final outcome with the winning party's polling lead having been exaggerated.
The 1979 election also merits some consideration . Whilst Callaghan lost decisively by 7.1% on May 3rd, that margin was a fair bit short of what polls had been recording in mid - late March prior to the fall of the Labour government. However, that probably simply reflected some recovery from the depths of Labour unpopularity in January and February at the peak of the Winter of Discontent - perhaps similar to the Tory recovery at the end of 2022 when Sunak replaced Truss. Over a longer period the Tories did improve their position in May 1979 compared with what polls had been showing throughout 1978. September & October 1978 had actually seen Labour 5% or so ahead according to Gallup!
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE THIS WHOLE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO SCOTLAND THING GO AWAY.
No one cares ffs.
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is a United Kingdom politics site. Until and unless that changes, whilst certain people might not care (I don't care about Merbyn Kernow for instance) it's right to discuss it.
Who do the SNP have who can recover their fortunes? Anyone obvious? The fact they found a Humza isn't promising - very reminiscent of the Cons and La Truss.
I don’t think there is anyone. Like the Tories in Westminster they need to go into opposition now for a bit. Some time away might actually help them, particularly if Labour lead the UK and Scottish governments - they stand a good chance of capitalising when they come unstuck.
People seem to really rate Forbes on here. I think she’s OK, I just don’t think she’s going to do anything to help them right now, she will just start a big debate in the party over social policy and there’ll be a risk that they lose support on the left to the Greens and Labour… she also can’t command a majority.
I really rate Forbes but then I would. She’s obviously centre right and quite unwoke. I fear she’d be good and intelligent and drive Indy again; I console myself that the Nats are too bats and too left wing to tolerate her. Also she’s better off waiting for the two election defeats to pass before making another bid: if she is so minded
So who else?
Forbes might help the cause in the long term by galvanising a more centrist vision of independence away from Nicola’s Coalition of All The Social Justice Warriors, but I don’t foresee her being a success in the short term.
She is not going to be loved by the central belt lefties. Labour will clean up a whole load of seats, and the SNP will end up looking more like the pre-Salmond SNP: more rural, more tartan Tory and less numerous.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
If she's so inclined to try and change her party she would be more sensible to do so from opposition. I think you're right in that there is no way she could lead the party right now without losing the support of a whole chunk of them.
Is it not possible that they have already lost that chunk.of support because of their positioning over the last couple of years and Forbes could start to reverse that.?
"TfL has revealed when the next revamped Central line trains will enter service on the London Underground. The 1992 stock is being upgraded as part of a £500 million programme.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and TfL bosses say a brand new fleet of trains is not possible as they have not been given enough cash by central government. Instead, carriages are being renovated with new seats, LED lighting, CCTV and IT systems.
A new moquette, wheels and motors are also being installed. However, engineers told MyLondon in November that technical constraints mean that it is not possible to fit air conditioning."
Meanwhile, up here in levelling up land, we have Class 150, 156 and 158 DMUs that all entered service prior to 1992.
Ay-up! We have Bakerloo line trains down 'ere in London wot entered service in 1972! Piccadilly line not far behind in 1973.
Don't try to out-Yorkshire us!
These are typical trains on the service from Pickering to Whitby:
Following Humza Yousaf's resignation as Scotland's First Minister, Alba Party's Ash Regan MSP has said it is 'bizarre' that he quit rather than working with her and her party, to survive a potential no-confidence vote.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
Still puzzled as to what the FM was referring to when he said he wasn't "prepared to trade his values & principles simply to retain power" when what Ash Regan was asking for was "protecting the dignity, safety & rights of women & children, & providing a competent government".
I've put a tenner on Kate Forbes at 5/2 with William Hill. Now in to 2/1.
She'd be fav in a contest, I'd have thought. But will they prefer to avoid one?
Kate Forbes has a head start, has already declared she wants to be FM and is the only one of the original three candidate replacements for Nicola Sturgeon in the running. Unless those opposed can rally round a Not Forbes candidate in sufficient numbers it looks she will get it by default.
This is a rerun of the Johnson/Truss/Sunak situation. Sturgeon/Humza/Forbes where the middle one blows up in spectacular style.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
But maybe it'd be better not to rush that. They'll score a decent number of Westminster seats in any event and the next Holyrood isn't until 2026.
This idea of putting in a leader who will be temporary while the party sorts itself out keeps coming up, either with respect to the SNP or the Tories. I don’t think it’s realistic. It’s not something you see happening in the real world.
Sticking someone in as a leader who is a lame duck from the start isn’t a good look. It’s not going to attract voters to your cause. Having longer to argue over a party’s direction can just make the party look even more divided. A leader who lacks the authority of permanence can do little to prevent the scheming and back-stabbing.
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
Also, whether “[t]hey’ll score a decent number of Westminster seats” is very much up in the air!
Still puzzled as to what the FM was referring to when he said he wasn't "prepared to trade his values & principles simply to retain power" when what Ash Regan was asking for was "protecting the dignity, safety & rights of women & children, & providing a competent government".
'Och lassie, ye know I'd always protect yer dignity, safety and rights. Come over here so I can gie ye a cuddle to prove it.'
"TfL has revealed when the next revamped Central line trains will enter service on the London Underground. The 1992 stock is being upgraded as part of a £500 million programme.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and TfL bosses say a brand new fleet of trains is not possible as they have not been given enough cash by central government. Instead, carriages are being renovated with new seats, LED lighting, CCTV and IT systems.
A new moquette, wheels and motors are also being installed. However, engineers told MyLondon in November that technical constraints mean that it is not possible to fit air conditioning."
Meanwhile, up here in levelling up land, we have Class 150, 156 and 158 DMUs that all entered service prior to 1992.
Ay-up! We have Bakerloo line trains down 'ere in London wot entered service in 1972! Piccadilly line not far behind in 1973.
Don't try to out-Yorkshire us!
These are typical trains on the service from Pickering to Whitby:
I entered service in 1973 and I'm definitely not fit for purpose any more.
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
But the SNP face the same issue as the Tories. Whoever is leader at the next election is going to get mollicated.
They both need a sacrificial lamb, and then they can pick a leader to rebuild from the rubble.
If there is to be “healing of hurt & upset” it must start with the electorate who are not the hateful bigots they are sometimes painted, particularly women’s rights activists. It must also take place within @theSNP. I will support a leader who recognises this
As all here may be aware, I yield to no one in my left wing, bring 'em all over, that mug is not in my name, sure I may have been at war with and dropping bombs on them but now I am a big fan and support their struggle against the evil oppressor, pro-immigration stance.
But Ireland may inadvertently be giving Rishi the support he needs wrt his immigration/Rwanda policy. Pass a law saying they must go back to the last country they came from, eh? Well I never.
Ireland is in La Francophonie, so Im sure President Macron will do his utmost to help out.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think any French government minister was so dim as to claim credit for asylum seekers crossing the Channel in small boats. None of them said, "you see, our policy to scare asylum seekers to go elsewhere is working," and thereby accept responsibility for it.
Sunak has accepted that his policy dumps asylum seekers on Ireland, that he is essentially in the same position as Belarus, shoving people across the Polish border, and so that puts Ireland in a much stronger position to demand that he does something about it.
If he hadn't been so stupid he would have responded to the Irish claims with a gallic shrug, said that the Rwanda policy was intended to stop the boat crossings, and left British voters to join the dots. But he couldn't help himself.
A key problem with the Rwanda scheme is that it seems unlikely to work, so Sunak and the policy's supporters have fallen on the Irish government's comments like a thirsty man in a desert finding a spring. The value of someone saying "it's working" (even though they are doing so for their own political reasons) is worth more to Sunak than the cost of having to clear up the mess that follows admitting he's shoving people across the Irish border.
I can understand opponents to the Rwanda scheme dismissing the Irish development but this is a real issue between Ireland and UK that will draw France and the EU into it and hopefully see cooperation and more importantly determination across thee countries to stop the boats once and for all and make Rwanda scheme redundant
Of course this would be a political result for Sunak but for me stopping the boats is about saving lives at sea not least because our family have lost several family members at sea and why our youngest son is an active RNLI sea going volunteer
Rwanda is all about political posturing. Wasn't it Cummings who suggested it was a smoke screen to cover up another Johnson scandal?
I doubt very much the scheme will stop the boats. There were far more robust mechanisms that could have been explored, but a political win is a political win. The Irish issue which has become an unexpected by product is a Daily Mail win for Sunak. Will the boats stop? Very unlikely, but if 6 boats a day becomes five, Sunak will consider that a win.
On Friday and Saturday there were 500 recorded small boat arrivals so evidence of a deterrent effect seems rdispute ather absent!
I find it extraordinary that anyone would expect to see an immediate reduction in boat crossings when the smugglers will be desperate to send over as many as possible before the consequences of the legislation become obvious not least as this Irish problem develops and flights take off
Here’s Tony Blair saying that a lot of asylum seekers are no more than economic migrants playing the system
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
But maybe it'd be better not to rush that. They'll score a decent number of Westminster seats in any event and the next Holyrood isn't until 2026.
This idea of putting in a leader who will be temporary while the party sorts itself out keeps coming up, either with respect to the SNP or the Tories. I don’t think it’s realistic. It’s not something you see happening in the real world.
Sticking someone in as a leader who is a lame duck from the start isn’t a good look. It’s not going to attract voters to your cause. Having longer to argue over a party’s direction can just make the party look even more divided. A leader who lacks the authority of permanence can do little to prevent the scheming and back-stabbing.
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
Also, whether “[t]hey’ll score a decent number of Westminster seats” is very much up in the air!
You're probably right. One of those 'great in theory only' ideas - like deciding "what Leave looks like" before holding a vote on it.
So on that line of thinking - Forbes will grab it.
Getting described as a 'gamble' gone wrong but a gamble has the potential to pay off - so what would that 'win' have looked like for Humza Yousaf?
Well, quite.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
Politicians who won't tell their own supporters the truth are politicians who will not succeed. Humza Yousaf leaves office promising that "independence is frustratingly close", thereby proving my point. Delusional
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
Aye.
Labour have picked an approach with Starmer. That approach is don’t-scare-the-horses. We all know exactly what Starmer is going to say on any issue. Labour are 100% committed to this approach and it’s working for them.
If there is to be “healing of hurt & upset” it must start with the electorate who are not the hateful bigots they are sometimes painted, particularly women’s rights activists. It must also take place within @theSNP. I will support a leader who recognises this
Cherry doesn't strike me as someone who learns lessons but let's hope she's learned from the last leadership election. Maybe start with getting folk other than Alex Salmond to back her choice for leader.
I haven't received a polling card... should I be worried? I know the government is trying to restrict access to voting so is there some hoop I should have jumped through to stop myself being kicked off the register?
1997 - This election possibly best fits present circumstances Labour won a landslide majority on1st May and a GB lead of 13% across GB. This was actually well short of the leads being recorded in late March when the election announcement took place when polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 21% - 25.5%. It also bears similarity to what was seen in 1966 , 1983 and was to be seen again in 2001 when massive overwhelming polling leads were not reflected in the final outcome with the winning party's polling lead having been exaggerated.
The 1979 election also merits some consideration . Whilst Callaghan lost decisively by 7.1% on May 3rd, that margin was a fair bit short of what polls had been recording in mid - late March prior to the fall of the Labour government. However, that probably simply reflected some recovery from the depths of Labour unpopularity in January and February at the peak of the Winter of Discontent - perhaps similar to the Tory recovery at the end of 2022 when Sunak replaced Truss. Over a longer period the Tories did improve their position in May 1979 compared with what polls had been showing throughout 1978. September & October 1978 had actually seen Labour 5% or so ahead according to Gallup!
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
But the SNP face the same issue as the Tories. Whoever is leader at the next election is going to get mollicated.
They both need a sacrificial lamb, and then they can pick a leader to rebuild from the rubble.
But first, there has to be rubble...
I would expect SNP to be the biggest party in Holyrood at the next election. Maybe not enough to form a government but still important
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
Aye.
Labour have picked an approach with Starmer. That approach is don’t-scare-the-horses. We all know exactly what Starmer is going to say on any issue. Labour are 100% committed to this approach and it’s working for them.
We all know what Starmer is going to say on any issue?
????
The opposite of what he said the last time he was asked?
1997 - This election possibly best fits present circumstances Labour won a landslide majority on1st May and a GB lead of 13% across GB. This was actually well short of the leads being recorded in late March when the election announcement took place when polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 21% - 25.5%. It also bears similarity to what was seen in 1966 , 1983 and was to be seen again in 2001 when massive overwhelming polling leads were not reflected in the final outcome with the winning party's polling lead having been exaggerated.
The 1979 election also merits some consideration . Whilst Callaghan lost decisively by 7.1% on May 3rd, that margin was a fair bit short of what polls had been recording in mid - late March prior to the fall of the Labour government. However, that probably simply reflected some recovery from the depths of Labour unpopularity in January and February at the peak of the Winter of Discontent - perhaps similar to the Tory recovery at the end of 2022 when Sunak replaced Truss. Over a longer period the Tories did improve their position in May 1979 compared with what polls had been showing throughout 1978. September & October 1978 had actually seen Labour 5% or so ahead according to Gallup!
Though even in 1997, there was a lot of duff polling- only ICM really had the need to do a Shy Tory Adjustment sorted, and they were getting Lab mid-high 40s and Con very low 30s from a couple of years out.
There was a Lab to Lib campaign effect on top of that, but a) it wasn't huge and b) it didn't work to the Conservatives advantage.
I haven't received a polling card... should I be worried? I know the government is trying to restrict access to voting so is there some hoop I should have jumped through to stop myself being kicked off the register?
Given your obsession with the return of Truss, it was decided that it was in everyone’s interest that you were removed.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
But the SNP face the same issue as the Tories. Whoever is leader at the next election is going to get mollicated.
They both need a sacrificial lamb, and then they can pick a leader to rebuild from the rubble.
But first, there has to be rubble...
If you pick a sacrificial lamb, the electorate will follow your lead and plunge in the knife. You’ve got to at least pretend you think you can win. It’s too late for the Tories, but the next Scottish Parliament might be far enough way for people to forget the SNP’s current travails.
Getting described as a 'gamble' gone wrong but a gamble has the potential to pay off - so what would that 'win' have looked like for Humza Yousaf?
Well, quite.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
Yes I don't really get it. My best guess - he'd identified the association with the 'kooky' Greens as a vote loser so he wanted to loosen that, move the party more to the centre, and at the same time stamp himself as the sort of strong and decisive leader his two predecessors had been.
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
But the SNP face the same issue as the Tories. Whoever is leader at the next election is going to get mollicated.
They both need a sacrificial lamb, and then they can pick a leader to rebuild from the rubble.
But first, there has to be rubble...
I would expect SNP to be the biggest party in Holyrood at the next election. Maybe not enough to form a government but still important
The crunch question will be how willing SLab will be to work with the SCons. They know anything obvious could screw up their big chance.
Following Humza Yousaf's resignation as Scotland's First Minister, Alba Party's Ash Regan MSP has said it is 'bizarre' that he quit rather than working with her and her party, to survive a potential no-confidence vote.
SLab would be foolish if they withdrew their VONC in the Scottish Government - it allows them to portray the SNP as puppets dancing to the Scottish Green Party.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
It would be somewhat amusing if the PM calls a general election in the aftermath of the locals this weekend, so the SNP has to write themselves a manifesto with no leader and no money to campaign.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
Aye.
Labour have picked an approach with Starmer. That approach is don’t-scare-the-horses. We all know exactly what Starmer is going to say on any issue. Labour are 100% committed to this approach and it’s working for them.
We all know what Starmer is going to say on any issue?
????
The opposite of what he said the last time he was asked?
Not quite. It's more that he says what is politically advantageous at the time. And if that contradicts what he said previously, well that's not a problem for him...
I haven't received a polling card... should I be worried? I know the government is trying to restrict access to voting so is there some hoop I should have jumped through to stop myself being kicked off the register?
You should’ve received a polling card by now. If you’re on the register, you don’t need a polling card, but you might still want to find out why it hasn’t arrived.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
I haven't received a polling card... should I be worried? I know the government is trying to restrict access to voting so is there some hoop I should have jumped through to stop myself being kicked off the register?
You should’ve received a polling card by now. If you’re on the register, you don’t need a polling card, but you might still want to find out why it hasn’t arrived.
Getting described as a 'gamble' gone wrong but a gamble has the potential to pay off - so what would that 'win' have looked like for Humza Yousaf?
Well, quite.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
Yes I don't really get it. My best guess - he'd identified the association with the 'kooky' Greens as a vote loser so he wanted to loosen that, move the party more to the centre, and at the same time stamp himself as the sort of strong and decisive leader his two predecessors had been.
The twitter conspiracy theorists say it was a Machiavellian SPAD who wanted Humza gone. I always prefer stupidity over conspiracies so I favour stupid fucking SPADS who came up with the cunning plan and stupid fucking Humza who bought it.
The guardian is claiming Forbes would be “overwhelming favourite” to win with the members. Is that true? She’s really quite right and the party is quite left
But I do not understand the inner workings of the Nats. She would struggle to form a government without the greens and then she’d surely have to call an election which she would likely lose
Perhaps somebody non-divisive who can quieten things down for a period while the party decides where it wants to go on independence strategy and general political positioning.
It doesn’t seem wise to go into a general election with a leader devoid of opinions on the key issues! Putting these things off doesn’t work. The party needs to pick an approach and then rally around a leader who is going to deliver that approach.
Aye.
Labour have picked an approach with Starmer. That approach is don’t-scare-the-horses. We all know exactly what Starmer is going to say on any issue. Labour are 100% committed to this approach and it’s working for them.
We all know what Starmer is going to say on any issue?
????
The opposite of what he said the last time he was asked?
isam, we know you have your own perspective on Starmer.
I think the rest of us know what Starmer is going to say on any issue. His answer will be non-committal, promise not to reverse any Conservative policy, but include some vague hope of doing things better than the Tories, which the electorate will lap up because it’s very easy to believe he can deliver something better than the Tories.
I've put a tenner on Kate Forbes at 5/2 with William Hill. Now in to 2/1.
She'd be fav in a contest, I'd have thought. But will they prefer to avoid one?
Kate Forbes has a head start, has already declared she wants to be FM and is the only one of the original three candidate replacements for Nicola Sturgeon in the running. Unless those opposed can rally round a Not Forbes candidate in sufficient numbers it looks she will get it by default.
This is a rerun of the Johnson/Truss/Sunak situation. Sturgeon/Humza/Forbes where the middle one blows up in spectacular style.
Forbes is unacceptable to Harvie/Slater axis and even some of her own party, would be reliant on Ash Regan's vote to be installed as FM, and could well find it impossible to get a budget passed if the Greens objected.
I haven't received a polling card... should I be worried? I know the government is trying to restrict access to voting so is there some hoop I should have jumped through to stop myself being kicked off the register?
You should’ve received a polling card by now. If you’re on the register, you don’t need a polling card, but you might still want to find out why it hasn’t arrived.
Probably something to do with the Royal Mail being crap. Which why I was annoyed to find out I can't just pop my postal ballot through the letterbox at the council offices, for some reason. (It's next to the pub, so fairly convenient)
As all here may be aware, I yield to no one in my left wing, bring 'em all over, that mug is not in my name, sure I may have been at war with and dropping bombs on them but now I am a big fan and support their struggle against the evil oppressor, pro-immigration stance.
But Ireland may inadvertently be giving Rishi the support he needs wrt his immigration/Rwanda policy. Pass a law saying they must go back to the last country they came from, eh? Well I never.
Ireland is in La Francophonie, so Im sure President Macron will do his utmost to help out.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think any French government minister was so dim as to claim credit for asylum seekers crossing the Channel in small boats. None of them said, "you see, our policy to scare asylum seekers to go elsewhere is working," and thereby accept responsibility for it.
Sunak has accepted that his policy dumps asylum seekers on Ireland, that he is essentially in the same position as Belarus, shoving people across the Polish border, and so that puts Ireland in a much stronger position to demand that he does something about it.
If he hadn't been so stupid he would have responded to the Irish claims with a gallic shrug, said that the Rwanda policy was intended to stop the boat crossings, and left British voters to join the dots. But he couldn't help himself.
A key problem with the Rwanda scheme is that it seems unlikely to work, so Sunak and the policy's supporters have fallen on the Irish government's comments like a thirsty man in a desert finding a spring. The value of someone saying "it's working" (even though they are doing so for their own political reasons) is worth more to Sunak than the cost of having to clear up the mess that follows admitting he's shoving people across the Irish border.
I can understand opponents to the Rwanda scheme dismissing the Irish development but this is a real issue between Ireland and UK that will draw France and the EU into it and hopefully see cooperation and more importantly determination across thee countries to stop the boats once and for all and make Rwanda scheme redundant
Of course this would be a political result for Sunak but for me stopping the boats is about saving lives at sea not least because our family have lost several family members at sea and why our youngest son is an active RNLI sea going volunteer
Rwanda is all about political posturing. Wasn't it Cummings who suggested it was a smoke screen to cover up another Johnson scandal?
I doubt very much the scheme will stop the boats. There were far more robust mechanisms that could have been explored, but a political win is a political win. The Irish issue which has become an unexpected by product is a Daily Mail win for Sunak. Will the boats stop? Very unlikely, but if 6 boats a day becomes five, Sunak will consider that a win.
On Friday and Saturday there were 500 recorded small boat arrivals so evidence of a deterrent effect seems rdispute ather absent!
I find it extraordinary that anyone would expect to see an immediate reduction in boat crossings when the smugglers will be desperate to send over as many as possible before the consequences of the legislation become obvious not least as this Irish problem develops and flights take off
Here’s Tony Blair saying that a lot of asylum seekers are no more than economic migrants playing the system
Asylum claim refusals peaked under Blair. For those who want an efficient migration system they should vote for pragmatists like Blair, not those who shout the loudest.
Getting described as a 'gamble' gone wrong but a gamble has the potential to pay off - so what would that 'win' have looked like for Humza Yousaf?
Well, quite.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
This is presumably to pause the 28 day countdown timer to an election if no replacement FM in place. I don't see the Greens wanting to VoNC to force an election.
Humza has been the opposite of astute but this move makes sense.
Getting described as a 'gamble' gone wrong but a gamble has the potential to pay off - so what would that 'win' have looked like for Humza Yousaf?
Well, quite.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
Yes I don't really get it. My best guess - he'd identified the association with the 'kooky' Greens as a vote loser so he wanted to loosen that, move the party more to the centre, and at the same time stamp himself as the sort of strong and decisive leader his two predecessors had been.
The twitter conspiracy theorists say it was a Machiavellian SPAD who wanted Humza gone. I always prefer stupidity over conspiracies so I favour stupid fucking SPADS who came up with the cunning plan and stupid fucking Humza who bought it.
I do recall you saying when he got the job that you thought he was a nice guy but no Albert Einstein.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
This is presumably to pause the 28 day countdown timer to an election if no replacement FM in place. I don't see the Greens wanting to VoNC to force an election.
Humza has been the opposite of astute but this move makes sense.
The SGP is polling quite well. Need they fear an election?
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
I assume that the Cons will revoke the VONC in him as First Minister, but that Lab will still put forward their VONC in the Scottish Govt... but that's just a supposition based on logic, so likely false!
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
It would be a waste of time having a VONC in HY as FM, now that he has announced his resignation. But I hope there's still a VONC in the Scottish Government so there can be a SGE.
I've put a tenner on Kate Forbes at 5/2 with William Hill. Now in to 2/1.
She'd be fav in a contest, I'd have thought. But will they prefer to avoid one?
Kate Forbes has a head start, has already declared she wants to be FM and is the only one of the original three candidate replacements for Nicola Sturgeon in the running. Unless those opposed can rally round a Not Forbes candidate in sufficient numbers it looks she will get it by default.
This is a rerun of the Johnson/Truss/Sunak situation. Sturgeon/Humza/Forbes where the middle one blows up in spectacular style.
Forbes is unacceptable to Harvie/Slater axis and even some of her own party, would be reliant on Ash Regan's vote to be installed as FM, and could well find it impossible to get a budget passed if the Greens objected.
Yes but variants of this apply to any alternative to Forbes that might be chosen. I guess we need to price in an early Holyrood election, where most of the actors don't want one but it happens anyway because not enough of them can agree on a specific course of action to prevent it.
Anas Sarwar is speaking to reporters in Glasgow. He is demanding an election is called instead of a “back room deal” to choose a new First Minister.
“It is for the people of Scotland to decide, and that is why there should be an election”
When's the election in Wales taking place?
Of course it isn't going to happen. But calling for an election is what oppositions do. It's a motion which must be gone through. He's not really expecting an election to be called, just as the SNP wouldn't really expect Sarwar not to call for one. Noone needs to get at all exercised about the confected outrage.
Not a flattering comparison, but there are some parallels between Conservatives nationally & the SNP. Speaks to dangers of populism - blaming everything that's going wrong on an external foe (Westminster/EU) while proffering up a magical-thinking solution (independence/Brexit).
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
This is presumably to pause the 28 day countdown timer to an election if no replacement FM in place. I don't see the Greens wanting to VoNC to force an election.
Humza has been the opposite of astute but this move makes sense.
The SGP is polling quite well. Need they fear an election?
It's a good question. The Greens are being conciliatory to the SNP now rather than pushing to collapse the government. Which suggests they don't want an election.
Yousaf to stay on until new SNP leader is elected, because the DFM can't be trusted with hot liquids. But THAT MEANS that the Greens will be asked to vote their confidence in a government STILL LED BY HUMZA YOUSAF....
So either the Greens have to do a simply ENORMOUS and humiliating u-turn, or they still have to bring down the government on Wednesday or Thursday. (The former is most likely, as they have hilariously zero principles.)
Anas Sarwar is speaking to reporters in Glasgow. He is demanding an election is called instead of a “back room deal” to choose a new First Minister.
“It is for the people of Scotland to decide, and that is why there should be an election”
When's the election in Wales taking place?
Of course it isn't going to happen. But calling for an election is what oppositions do. It's a motion which must be gone through. He's not really expecting an election to be called, just as the SNP wouldn't really expect Sarwar not to call for one. Noone needs to get at all exercised about the confected outrage.
Yeah, but I thought PB might be above breathless regurgitating of Sarwar's guff. Actually, wtf was I thinking, of course it's not above that.
Anas Sarwar is speaking to reporters in Glasgow. He is demanding an election is called instead of a “back room deal” to choose a new First Minister.
“It is for the people of Scotland to decide, and that is why there should be an election”
When's the election in Wales taking place?
Of course it isn't going to happen. But calling for an election is what oppositions do. It's a motion which must be gone through. He's not really expecting an election to be called, just as the SNP wouldn't really expect Sarwar not to call for one. Noone needs to get at all exercised about the confected outrage.
Yeah, but I thought PB might be above breathless regurgitating of Sarwar's guff. .
It's better than boring old drunkards' holiday photos, so there's that.
More chaos ahoy. Humza Yousaf does a Sturgeon and announces his intention to resign as FM but not until SNP members (number TBC) have chosen another leader. Stand by for another unedifying dogfight on the cusp of a general election
It would be a waste of time having a VONC in HY as FM, now that he has announced his resignation. But I hope there's still a VONC in the Scottish Government so there can be a SGE.
I see it is Hammer the Disabled Day on Sunak's news grid.
A multi-millionaire (with an even richer wife) hammering the the sick and disabled isn't a good look, is it?
Sunak is very right wing. He believes government is there only to defend the country and ensure the rich keep their wealth. The Conservative Party have previously done a good job of pretending to be on the side of the common man and woman. Sunak's sin is not even to bother to pretend.
I always get the impression that a lot of Tories think that most who claim to be disabled are having us on. No doubt there are a few (always fun to see a case in the Daily Mail of someone claiming to be unable to walk more than a few steps, shown running a local marathon or some such. But it is unlikely to be that many people, and those in genuine need should not suffer because of them.
Support for disabled folk is clearly going to be very specific to the individual.
Anas Sarwar is speaking to reporters in Glasgow. He is demanding an election is called instead of a “back room deal” to choose a new First Minister.
“It is for the people of Scotland to decide, and that is why there should be an election”
When's the election in Wales taking place?
Of course it isn't going to happen. But calling for an election is what oppositions do. It's a motion which must be gone through. He's not really expecting an election to be called, just as the SNP wouldn't really expect Sarwar not to call for one. Noone needs to get at all exercised about the confected outrage.
Yeah, but I thought PB might be above breathless regurgitating of Sarwar's guff. .
It's better than boring old drunkards' holiday photos, so there's that.
@DeltapollUK 🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead widens to twenty points in our latest results. Con 24% (-3) Lab 44% (+1) Lib Dem 8% (-1) Reform 12% (-) SNP 3% (-) Green 5% (-) Other 3% (+2) Fieldwork: 26th-29th April 2024 Sample: 1,577 GB adults (Changes from 19th-22nd April 2024)
Comments
Until and unless that changes, whilst certain people might not care (I don't care about Merbyn Kernow for instance) it's right to discuss it.
For that reason, this isn’t a market I feel very comfortable wading into.
Scottish Greens offer an olive branch to the next Scottish first minister
Statement just issued from co-leader Patrick Harvie is notably conciliatory in tone
Opens the door to Scottish Greens supporting the next FM and working with SNP… if their policy goals are delivered
Scotland will be free when the last bitter old man is strangled by the last copy of Harry Potter and the Trans Dementors.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24282892.snps-kate-forbes-hopes-scottish-greens-will-embrace/
Hmm.
Ydoethur said -
'Not true of 1964, 1970, Oct 1974, 1983, 1992, 1997 or 2005.
I think that’s an oversimplification.'
Re - the examples referred to there.
1964 - The election was announced in Mid-September. In the period to the end of September 5 polls had the Tories ahead with leads ranging from 0.2% to 4.0%. A single random Gallup poll had a Labour lead of 4.5%.. Polling Day was October 15th and only in the final 2 weeks did Labour edge back into the lead it had enjoyed until late Summer. That saw 5 polls with Labour leads in the range of 0.1% to 8% and 4 Tory leads which ranged from 0.8% to 3.6%..
The result on 15th October across GB saw a Labour lead of 1.9% - a better outcome for the party than suggested by most polls a month earlier at the outset of the campaign.The swingback to Douglas-Home and the Tories which had been evident in August and early September had been reversed.
1970 - The election was announced on May 18th to be held on June 18th.In mid- May polls recorded Labour leads in the range of 3.2% - 7.5%.The final week of the campaign saw 6 Labour leads ranging from 2% to 9.6% with a single eve of poll from ORC showing a 1% Tory lead.
The result on 18th June was a Tory lead across GB of 2.4% - a clear swing to the Opposition party compared with what polls had implied a month earlier.
Oct 1974 - The election was announced in mid-September to be held on October 10th. Polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 4% -14% whilst a single NOP poll showed a 1% Tory lead. The final week saw Labour leads of 5.5% - 14.5%.
The result on October 10th saw a Labour lead in GB of 3.6%. The Labour lead had narrowed during the campaign..
1983 - The election was announced on May 9th to be held on June 9th. At the outset polls recorded Tory leads of 10% - 17.5% .
The outcome on 9th June was a Tory GB lead of 15.2% . Whilst that was little changed from the margin indicated a month earlier both major parties lost vote shares during the campaign period to the Alliance. The Labour opposition did not benefit though the the Tories overall lost support during the campaign to the Lib/SDP Alliance
1992 - This election did not fit the pattern at all, but - as was to be the case in 2015 - serious polling methodological issues were later identified. A consensus has emerged to the effect that the Tories were actually ahead throughout both campaigns - and ,for that reason, analysis is difficult and unlikely to be productive.
Labour won a landslide majority on1st May and a GB lead of 13% across GB. This was actually well short of the leads being recorded in late March when the election announcement took place when polls were recording Labour leads in the range of 21% - 25.5%. It also bears similarity to what was seen in 1966 , 1983 and was to be seen again in 2001 when massive overwhelming polling leads were not reflected in the final outcome with the winning party's polling lead having been exaggerated.
The 1979 election also merits some consideration . Whilst Callaghan lost decisively by 7.1% on May 3rd, that margin was a fair bit short of what polls had been recording in mid - late March prior to the fall of the Labour government. However, that probably simply reflected some recovery from the depths of Labour unpopularity in January and February at the peak of the Winter of Discontent - perhaps similar to the Tory recovery at the end of 2022 when Sunak replaced Truss. Over a longer period the Tories did improve their position in May 1979 compared with what polls had been showing throughout 1978. September & October 1978 had actually seen Labour 5% or so ahead according to Gallup!
(It's the Re-Truth that is the concern here.)
These are typical trains on the service from Pickering to Whitby:
Yousaf: "I am not willing to trade my values and principles, or do a deal with whoever, simply for retaining power."
Alex Salmond - the persona non grata of Scottish politics.
Following Humza Yousaf's resignation as Scotland's First Minister, Alba Party's Ash Regan MSP has said it is 'bizarre' that he quit rather than working with her and her party, to survive a potential no-confidence vote.
Still puzzled as to what the FM was referring to when he said he wasn't "prepared to trade his values & principles simply to retain power" when what Ash Regan was asking for was "protecting the dignity, safety & rights of women & children, & providing a competent government".
This is a rerun of the Johnson/Truss/Sunak situation. Sturgeon/Humza/Forbes where the middle one blows up in spectacular style.
Sticking someone in as a leader who is a lame duck from the start isn’t a good look. It’s not going to attract voters to your cause. Having longer to argue over a party’s direction can just make the party look even more divided. A leader who lacks the authority of permanence can do little to prevent the scheming and back-stabbing.
The issues the SNP (or the Tories) need to address aren’t new. The party has been trying to decide where it wants to go for the entirety of Yousaf’s period in office. The same discussions were happening under Sturgeon. I’m no SNP fan, so I’m quite happy for them to go on fighting, but if the party wants to dig itself out of its current hole, I suggest they need to make some decisions and unify under a new leader. I think it would help the SNP to pick someone who can lead them from out of Salmond’s and Sturgeon’s shadow.
Also, whether “[t]hey’ll score a decent number of Westminster seats” is very much up in the air!
Salud!
And goodbye Humza
They both need a sacrificial lamb, and then they can pick a leader to rebuild from the rubble.
But first, there has to be rubble...
https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1784904343721750924
https://x.com/wayotworld/status/1784633398973092319?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
So on that line of thinking - Forbes will grab it.
I don’t really know what he was trying to achieve.
I assume he was trying to re-set the perception that he was being led by the unpopular Greens. But then he seems to be on board with most of their agenda, so…
If he wanted to try and recast the relationship with the Greens but make sure he could still run a minority administration, shouldn’t he really have tried to negotiate a revised version of Bute House rather than summoning the Greens to an unceremonious dawn sacking?
If he wanted to work across groups in the Parliament might it not have been a better idea to strike a conciliatory tone in the Chamber rather than blunder about trading political insults?
Doubtless the real story will come out in the fullness of time but as political unforced errors go it was a pretty perplexingly bad one.
https://x.com/alexmassie/status/1784907047630233646
????
The opposite of what he said the last time he was asked?
There was a Lab to Lib campaign effect on top of that, but a) it wasn't huge and b) it didn't work to the Conservatives advantage.
https://x.com/HTScotPol/status/1784902279084081173
Leo Varadkar, Ireland - GONE
Humza Yousaf, Scotland - GONE
Next...
Pedro Sanchez, Spain -SOON GONE?
Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa - SOON GONE?
I think the rest of us know what Starmer is going to say on any issue. His answer will be non-committal, promise not to reverse any Conservative policy, but include some vague hope of doing things better than the Tories, which the electorate will lap up because it’s very easy to believe he can deliver something better than the Tories.
Humza has been the opposite of astute but this move makes sense.
Anas Sarwar is speaking to reporters in Glasgow. He is demanding an election is called instead of a “back room deal” to choose a new First Minister.
“It is for the people of Scotland to decide, and that is why there should be an election”
But I hope there's still a VONC in the Scottish Government so there can be a SGE.
What sort of archaic systems are in the back end of our grid for it to take that long ?
Noone needs to get at all exercised about the confected outrage.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1784912135367049571
So either the Greens have to do a simply ENORMOUS and humiliating u-turn, or they still have to bring down the government on Wednesday or Thursday. (The former is most likely, as they have hilariously zero principles.)
https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1784903170855948666
Actually, wtf was I thinking, of course it's not above that.
https://x.com/HTScotPol/status/1784922044636774475
Ladbrokes news release: BETTING SUSPENDED on Humza Yousaf replacement after flood of bets on John Swinney
I took some of the 8/1 that was on offer this morning
Support for disabled folk is clearly going to be very specific to the individual.
🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead widens to twenty points in our latest results.
Con 24% (-3)
Lab 44% (+1)
Lib Dem 8% (-1)
Reform 12% (-)
SNP 3% (-)
Green 5% (-)
Other 3% (+2)
Fieldwork: 26th-29th April 2024
Sample: 1,577 GB adults
(Changes from 19th-22nd April 2024)