Labour should vote Labour for the list given how many FPTP seats will lose. The great majority of their Holyrood seats will likely come from list section next year.
Will be interesting to see if tactical voting can keep the Nats from an overall majority again? Means that Con voters need to vote Lab for the seat and Con for the list, Lab voters doing the same. Except in the Con areas, then both need to be the opposite! Does anyone in Scotland care about LDs any more?
Ha Ha Ha
They will certainly need their consolation prizes for sure, and the Tories and Lib Dems. List seats will be a parade of losers.
Labour should vote Labour for the list given how many FPTP seats will lose. The great majority of their Holyrood seats will likely come from list section next year.
Will be interesting to see if tactical voting can keep the Nats from an overall majority again? Means that Con voters need to vote Lab for the seat and Con for the list, Lab voters doing the same. Except in the Con areas, then both need to be the opposite! Does anyone in Scotland care about LDs any more?
Ha Ha Ha
Just like the SCons. Doesn't bode well for SLab rebuilding if their constituency base is even further eroded.
RIP Charlie; alcohol is a scourge in the H&I that still isn't taken seriously enough. The poor bloke was probably in the worst possible trade for someone with his demons, his last appearance on QT was, with hindsight, tragic.
Very sad news about Charles Kennedy. I thought Paddy Ashdown did brilliantly to hold himself together on the BBC news earlier; he was clearly desperately sad and it was good to see such a human reaction. It's a devastating loss for the Kennedy family, but also for the LibDems.
A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.
Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.
He was wrong about not going into coalition. There was no other realistic option for the Lib Dems, given that their political position over the years was to move to a voting system that would lead to near-permanent coalitions.
They couldn't refuse a workable coalition the first time one came up.
BTW, did he really say that the coalition would be a disaster for the Lib Dems when he voted against it?
It's simply untrue to say that the Liberals could not reject coalition. They could, trivially so. They had a position to decide both which party took power and how any deal would work out and they capitulated to the Tories and got the worst possible deal.
Any alternative would have been better than the Extinction of their party (which is what they now face).
"They had a position to decide both which party took power "
Are you saying that you think that the 'rainbow coalition' was a goer, with Labour as biggest party? As Mr Sox says below, the only realistic options were a coalition with the Conservatives, and some form of C&S-style agreement with a Conservative minority government.
Either way, they would be seen as 'helping' a Conservative government.
The Lib Dems used to celebrate Charlie's drinking. I found this aspect of what they regarded as humour barely one level above mocking disability people. But they clearly saw words such as these acceptable. Shame that they chose not to intervene earlier. "Speed bonnie boat, Like a hack on the make; Back to his seat on Skye. Carry the lad that was born to be King, Back to the seat on Skye Where is the man? Down in the bar, Loudly the Whips pro-clai-aim Out on the town, Out of his head, Charlie is pissed again"
CK - never a fan of his, or attempts to minimise the extent his fondness for the amber peaty liquids prior to a General Election was kept from public knowledge. Though it was ironic that LDs did worse under the sober leadership of Clegg.
As for the principled opposition to Iraq, CK saw a sector of the political market, went for it just because it was there, he got the votes for it.
Very sad news about Charles Kennedy. I thought Paddy Ashdown did brilliantly to hold himself together on the BBC news earlier; he was clearly desperately sad and it was good to see such a human reaction. It's a devastating loss for the Kennedy family, but also for the LibDems.
SO , a change for Ashdown , he usually comes across as the fake he so patently is.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
CK - never a fan of his, or attempts to minimise the extent his fondness for the amber peaty liquids prior to a General Election was kept from public knowledge. Though it was ironic that LDs did worse under the sober leadership of Clegg.
As for the principled opposition to Iraq, CK saw a sector of the political market, went for it just because it was there, he got the votes for it.
Or perhaps he just had principles and unlike your usual grasping politician who would knife their granny, he stood up for his principles. Hence Clegg getting his just desserts with him having zero principles.
What SLAB has not decided yet is their selection system and ranking for list section. It will be fun as it is now crucial for survival.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted it, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
Just what you would expect from unprincipled losers.
A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.
Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.
.........Kennedy was right to lead the opposition to Labours Gulf War, If only our leaders had stood firm I think the US would not have been so keen on going in alone. Lets hope the Chillcot report vindicates the LD position and finishes off the career of people like Alastair Campbell.
Will the Chilcott report come out? A race between the report and the coffin dodging abilities of the committee's members. Was there ever such a poor project manager in the civil service than Chilcott?
One hopes that when Chilcott finally publishes his report, he will be held to account for the publication delays and costs of production. The public have a right to know why this has taken so many years and cost so much public money. One may also wish that in the meantime he should report to Parliament under privilege exactly what the hell is holding it up.
What SLAB has not decided yet is their selection system and ranking for list section. It will be fun as it is now crucial for survival.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
The Westminster losers will be desperate to get the system changed so that they can get back on the gravy train.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
Also a lot of people saying they voted for him - I never knew Ross, Skye and Lochaber had so many inhabitants!
It's simply untrue to say that the Liberals could not reject coalition. They could, trivially so. They had a position to decide both which party took power and how any deal would work out and they capitulated to the Tories and got the worst possible deal.
Any alternative would have been better than the Extinction of their party (which is what they now face).
"They had a position to decide both which party took power "
Are you saying that you think that the 'rainbow coalition' was a goer, with Labour as biggest party? As Mr Sox says below, the only realistic options were a coalition with the Conservatives, and some form of C&S-style agreement with a Conservative minority government.
Either way, they would be seen as 'helping' a Conservative government.
No, I'm not saying the media's ridiculous talk of a "rainbow coalition" was a goer. I'm saying a minority Labour/Liberal government which would have held 319 seats, would have been a workable government.
But that wasn't the main point. My main point is that ANY alternative to the one they chose would have been better for their party's future. No choice could have been as bad as a full coalition with the Conservative party where fundamental pledges were abandoned on acceptance and no control over any single ministry to demonstrate success was given to them.
Coalition with Labour would not have reduced them to 8 seats. Refusing any deal would not have reduced them to 8 seats. Supply and Confidence with the Tories would not have reduced them to 8 seats. A Coalition with the Tories where they controlled a couple of individual departments would not have reduced them to 8 seats.
Even in the worst case scenario where they gave up every pledge in their manifesto in return for AMS PR by parliamentary vote as part of the FTPA would probably have reduced them to 8 seats but at least given them a way back.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
None of which precludes the fact they feel desperately sad about someone they knew well and probably liked very much on a personal level dying well before his time and leaving a young son without a father.
A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.
Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.
.........Kennedy was right to lead the opposition to Labours Gulf War, If only our leaders had stood firm I think the US would not have been so keen on going in alone. Lets hope the Chillcot report vindicates the LD position and finishes off the career of people like Alastair Campbell.
Will the Chilcott report come out? A race between the report and the coffin dodging abilities of the committee's members. Was there ever such a poor project manager in the civil service than Chilcott?
One hopes that when Chilcott finally publishes his report, he will be held to account for the publication delays and costs of production. The public have a right to know why this has taken so many years and cost so much public money. One may also wish that in the meantime he should report to Parliament under privilege exactly what the hell is holding it up.
What is holding it up is due to Chilcott being a terrible manager. He should have his fee reduced by a set amount for every day beyond 2014 that it fails to come out. Instead he probably gets paid more for each day of delay.
Charles Kennedy was only eighteen months or so older than me so his death raises those questions you don't like to think about too much.
I knew him more in the late 80s and early 90s when I was politically quite active in Sutton and elsewhere. I had first met him at a Liberal Assembly when he spoke on the fringe and then he was the only SDP MP who openly supported the merging of the two parties in 1987 (Robert MacLennan came along later in the process).
I was delighted to see him as President of the Liberal Democrats and he was the obvious choice to take over from Paddy in 1999. He may not have has Paddy's relentless energy but he worked hard for the party and I remember him campaigning in Romsey in 2000 to get Sandra Gidley elected.
He came to the Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZed) soon after it opened and I was invited as a Party member to go along as one of the crowd but it was great to see him and he gave an impromptu address to us afterward which was full of wit and humour.
Much of the real business of Party Conferences (as those who have attended them will know) is done at the bars and the fringe meetings so to see him or another MP at a bar raised no eyebrows back then and I had no idea back then there was any problem.
Charles had the good fortune of leading the Party at a time of unprecdented Conservative weakness and opportunity and his courage in opposing the Iraq War, in the face of vitriolic comments from much of the Press, was incredible and he was able to reach out beyond the normal core Liberal Democrat vote into Labour areas as well as Conservative ones.
2005 was a disappointment - the Conservatives dumped IDS just in time and retreated to their core handing the election to Blair. Had Labour fallen short of a majority - well, I've often wondered what Charles would have done ? The circumstances of his departure from the leadership are well documented and didn't reflect well on the Party but as someone else once said "politics is a rough trade" and it takes no prisoners.
To lose a parent at any time is difficult as I can attest but to lose both a father and to be thrown out of a job after over thirty years must have been doubly hard. Perhaps, instead of gloating at the fall of political opponents, we might ourselves consider these are human beings with all that entails and consider whether their misfortune is really worth all our glee.
What SLAB has not decided yet is their selection system and ranking for list section. It will be fun as it is now crucial for survival.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted it, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
Labour can expect about 15 to 20 seats after the 2016 Holyrood vote, almost entirely from the List.
That means one hell of a lot of rats fighting it out in a very, very small sack.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
Also a lot of people saying they voted for him - I never knew Ross, Skye and Lochaber had so many inhabitants!
I think that by saying "I voted for him in 2005" they are meaning that they voted for the Lib Dems of which he was the leader.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
None of which precludes the fact they feel desperately sad about someone they knew well and probably liked very much on a personal level dying well before his time and leaving a young son without a father.
I wonder what the actual ratio is in society might be between people who feel the way you describe and those who do not understand at all why such people would feel particularly emotional about such a thing.
No, I'm not saying the media's ridiculous talk of a "rainbow coalition" was a goer. I'm saying a minority Labour/Liberal government which would have held 319 seats, would have been a workable government.
But that wasn't the main point. My main point is that ANY alternative to the one they chose would have been better for their party's future. No choice could have been as bad as a full coalition with the Conservative party where fundamental pledges were abandoned on acceptance and no control over any single ministry to demonstrate success was given to them.
(snip)
A lib-Lab minority government would not have lasted six months. For one thing you had the question of who would be Labour leader - there's no way Brown could have continued as leader. There's also the issue of what policies such a government could have got through parliament in the Queen's Speech.
There would have been political stagnation and probably (almost certainly?) a November 2010 election.
Also remember that the economic crisis was in full swing, and stability was needed.
The only practical options were the deal they did with the Conservatives, or no deal and another election, which they would fight from a very weak position - the self-proclaimed kingmaker who failed to choose a king.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
Also a lot of people saying they voted for him - I never knew Ross, Skye and Lochaber had so many inhabitants!
I think that by saying "I voted for him in 2005" they are meaning that they voted for the Lib Dems of which he was the leader.
Yes, but they're technically wrong. They voted for a local MP who happened to belong to the same party. ;-)
Since I believe political parties hold too much power, I am keen to make this point as often as possible. Too many poor candidates get into parliament because people vote for party over candidate.
What SLAB has not decided yet is their selection system and ranking for list section. It will be fun as it is now crucial for survival.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted it, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
Labour can expect about 15 to 20 seats after the 2016 Holyrood vote, almost entirely from the List.
That means one hell of a lot of rats fighting it out in a very, very small sack.
Do you think that Labour could drop down to third place then? If so who would displace them? The Tories or someone else?
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
None of which precludes the fact they feel desperately sad about someone they knew well and probably liked very much on a personal level dying well before his time and leaving a young son without a father.
I wonder what the actual ratio is in society might be between people who feel the way you describe and those who do not understand at all why such people would feel particularly emotional about such a thing.
How many people do you think are unable to feel emotions at the death of a longstanding colleague and possibly a close friend, they being the 'such people' in this example?
No, I'm not saying the media's ridiculous talk of a "rainbow coalition" was a goer. I'm saying a minority Labour/Liberal government which would have held 319 seats, would have been a workable government.
But that wasn't the main point. My main point is that ANY alternative to the one they chose would have been better for their party's future. No choice could have been as bad as a full coalition with the Conservative party where fundamental pledges were abandoned on acceptance and no control over any single ministry to demonstrate success was given to them.
(snip)
A lib-Lab minority government would not have lasted six months. For one thing you had the question of who would be Labour leader - there's no way Brown could have continued as leader. There's also the issue of what policies such a government could have got through parliament in the Queen's Speech.
There would have been political stagnation and probably (almost certainly?) a November 2010 election.
Also remember that the economic crisis was in full swing, and stability was needed.
The only practical options were the deal they did with the Conservatives, or no deal and another election, which they would fight from a very weak position - the self-proclaimed kingmaker who failed to choose a king.
My consideration was not for the stability of government, just whether a government could form (and a correction, it would have had 318 seats with a majority target of 322). In terms of outcome for the Lib Dems as a continuing and relevant political party, any other choice was better - including that one.
It should also be pointed out that by May 2010, the economic crisis was entirely over, only the method of recovery was in question. The stability argument and FUD about Interest Rates were entirely Tory canards. But then PB Tories and too many others seem to think the government you have makes much difference to the economy. History suggests it is largely irrelevant.
Yes, but they're technically wrong. They voted for a local MP who happened to belong to the same party. ;-)
Since I believe political parties hold too much power, I am keen to make this point as often as possible. Too many poor candidates get into parliament because people vote for party over candidate.
Strangely enough, I think a key part of the Conservative victory last month was because people voted for David Cameron rather than for the Conservative Party.
Like Thatcher and Blair before him, Cameron has been able to persuade non-Conservatives to vote Conservative as a mark of personal support. I imagine (or would like to think) there is some research going on to ascertain what degree of Conservative support was personalised support for Cameron.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
None of which precludes the fact they feel desperately sad about someone they knew well and probably liked very much on a personal level dying well before his time and leaving a young son without a father.
I wonder what the actual ratio is in society might be between people who feel the way you describe and those who do not understand at all why such people would feel particularly emotional about such a thing.
How many people do you think are unable to feel emotions at the death of a longstanding colleague and possibly a close friend, they being the 'such people' in this example?
I think you have misread what "runnymede" wrote. He said "on here".
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
Also a lot of people saying they voted for him - I never knew Ross, Skye and Lochaber had so many inhabitants!
I think that by saying "I voted for him in 2005" they are meaning that they voted for the Lib Dems of which he was the leader.
Yes, but they're technically wrong. They voted for a local MP who happened to belong to the same party. ;-)
Since I believe political parties hold too much power, I am keen to make this point as often as possible. Too many poor candidates get into parliament because people vote for party over candidate.
I'd prefer people vote on the basis of the actual candidate, or at least give that serious weight, but people can vote how they choose for the reasons they choose, not just good reasons - and that includes voting for a candidate purely on the basis of who their party leader is. I cannot see it changing anytime soon either as despite modern media candidates seem to try not to distinguish themselves from the party as embodied by the leader at all.
No, I'm not saying the media's ridiculous talk of a "rainbow coalition" was a goer. I'm saying a minority Labour/Liberal government which would have held 319 seats, would have been a workable government.
But that wasn't the main point. My main point is that ANY alternative to the one they chose would have been better for their party's future. No choice could have been as bad as a full coalition with the Conservative party where fundamental pledges were abandoned on acceptance and no control over any single ministry to demonstrate success was given to them.
(snip)
A lib-Lab minority government would not have lasted six months. For one thing you had the question of who would be Labour leader - there's no way Brown could have continued as leader. There's also the issue of what policies such a government could have got through parliament in the Queen's Speech.
There would have been political stagnation and probably (almost certainly?) a November 2010 election.
Also remember that the economic crisis was in full swing, and stability was needed.
The only practical options were the deal they did with the Conservatives, or no deal and another election, which they would fight from a very weak position - the self-proclaimed kingmaker who failed to choose a king.
My consideration was not for the stability of government, just whether a government could form (and a correction, it would have had 318 seats with a majority target of 322). In terms of outcome for the Lib Dems as a continuing and relevant political party, any other choice was better - including that one.
It should also be pointed out that by May 2010, the economic crisis was entirely over, only the method of recovery was in question. The stability argument and FUD about Interest Rates were entirely Tory canards. But then PB Tories and too many others seem to think the government you have makes much difference to the economy. History suggests it is largely irrelevant.
If you are not bothered about the stability of the government, then it's a pointless discussion. Stability of government is massively important. I can understand why, as a Scottish nationalist, you might want to have seen a chaotic UK government.
Kennedy's former colleagues should be feeling guilty, not sad. Had they acted sooner instead over covering up his problems, the man might still be alive.
What SLAB has not decided yet is their selection system and ranking for list section. It will be fun as it is now crucial for survival.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted it, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
Labour can expect about 15 to 20 seats after the 2016 Holyrood vote, almost entirely from the List.
That means one hell of a lot of rats fighting it out in a very, very small sack.
Do you think that Labour could drop down to third place then? If so who would displace them? The Tories or someone else?
to an extent it is still too early to say for sure. Labour have a good chance of remaining the second largest party because it is virtually impossible for the Greens or Tories to get a higher list vote. The Greens are going from too low a base and are still some distance from representation in every Region and the Tories just cannot every increase their vote and if there is a squeeze from the Greens it could stop the Tories continuing to have representation in every Region.
Also the Tories are overrepresented in South of Scotland, they can lose constituencies without gaining any list compensation (the same also applies to the Liberals in Highlands and Islands, if they lose Orkney or Shetland they won't get a List seat in return).
On 2011 results Labour do not have this concern. However, that was based on a 26% list vote. Their list vote could drop substantially given their 2015 performance. If Labour hold on to 25% of the Vote they could expect to retain nearly 30 seats. But as the Spartans say "If...."
O/T The French Open is my favourite tennis tournament and thought I'd share a couple of tips for those that enjoy that kind of thing.
French Open tennis quarter-finals. In the first QF today I fancy TSONGA to have a great chance of causing a shock and beating Nishikori. He's on home soil and was very impressive against Berdych yesterday. Nishikori's second serve looks there for the taking and TSONGA has the power play to do some damage. Nishikori has won 4 out of 5 matches which is why TSONGA is a juicy 14/5 with stanjames.com but all of these were on hard courts and I've often seen TSONGA raise his game for the big occasions. I'd take 7/4+. I'm also backing Nishikori winning 3-2 in sets at 6/1 (Boylesports.com and Sportingbet.com) as a saver.
In the 3rd QF tomorrow I'm taking on Andy Murray. Murray is on a good run but has played FERRER four times on clay and never beaten him on the red stuff. FERRER has actually won more tournaments than Murray this year and his distinctive style means that he often franks form when there's a head-to-head surface advantage. FERRER is 15/8 with boylesports.com and 7/4 with Ladbrokes. You can get 11/2 and 5/1 on a Murray 3-2 sets win and I'm also taking that as a modest saver.
Why would the SNP go to the trouble of setting up a feeder party for the list vote when the Greens stand ready and waiting for tactical votes already?
Until Scottish Labour find a reason why anyone would vote for them, there will be no end to their misery. The problem is more acute for them in Holyrood than in Westminster.
My first suggestions would be:
1) Make support or opposition to independence a matter of private conscience at every level of the party. They can't afford to exclude 45% of the electorate from their ranks.
2) Break all links with the Westminster party and establish a relationship with it akin to that held by the SDLP (Welsh Labour would benefit from this too).
3) Introduce a fine system for any MSP who mentions the Tories.
Lots of crocodile tears on here today I expect re. Charles Kennedy - let's not forget how his 'devastated' Lib Dem colleagues first covered up his problems and then pushed him out when he was no longer an asset (in their eyes).
None of which precludes the fact they feel desperately sad about someone they knew well and probably liked very much on a personal level dying well before his time and leaving a young son without a father.
I wonder what the actual ratio is in society might be between people who feel the way you describe and those who do not understand at all why such people would feel particularly emotional about such a thing.
How many people do you think are unable to feel emotions at the death of a longstanding colleague and possibly a close friend, they being the 'such people' in this example?
I think you have misread what "runnymede" wrote. He said "on here".
So where Runnymede was making a point about 'devastated' ld colleagues (colleagues is key, that indicates people who knew Kennedy) treating Kennedy poorly, something for people on here to bear in mind when crying crocodile tears, you were making a pb point?
Southam replied stating ld colleagues who may treated Kennedy poorly re the covering up drinking Runnymede referred to etc did not preclude them feeling sad about his death. He said ' someone they knew well' in relation to Kennedy. That's clearly a reference to people who knew Kennedy feeling sad whatever happened politically.
You then wondered how many of society felt the same or wouldn't understand why those people - in reply to Southam who was talking about ld colleagues of Kennedy - would feel emotional. That gives an implication of thinking some ratio of the public think those colleagues would not feel emotions and therefore that you might be one of those people who thinks that, hence my making it a question not a statement.
I apologise if I have misread your intent but following my chain of thought above I trust you will see the reasoning behind it and genuine confusion. I certainly did not miss runnymeades post, but yours as laid out does not appear to reference the same people.
If you meant to comment on people professing emotion on here that was most unclear given the reference to 'such people' feeling emotional in reply to a post referring to ld colleagues of Kennedy being emotional.
Comments
Doesn't bode well for SLab rebuilding if their constituency base is even further eroded.
RIP Charlie; alcohol is a scourge in the H&I that still isn't taken seriously enough. The poor bloke was probably in the worst possible trade for someone with his demons, his last appearance on QT was, with hindsight, tragic.
Are you saying that you think that the 'rainbow coalition' was a goer, with Labour as biggest party? As Mr Sox says below, the only realistic options were a coalition with the Conservatives, and some form of C&S-style agreement with a Conservative minority government.
Either way, they would be seen as 'helping' a Conservative government.
"Speed bonnie boat,
Like a hack on the make;
Back to his seat on Skye.
Carry the lad that was born to be King,
Back to the seat on Skye
Where is the man?
Down in the bar,
Loudly the Whips pro-clai-aim
Out on the town,
Out of his head,
Charlie is pissed again"
As for the principled opposition to Iraq, CK saw a sector of the political market, went for it just because it was there, he got the votes for it.
He was a politician who I respected, liked and for whose party I voted in 2005.
Will reselected sitting list MSPs allowed to directly get the top spots? They wanted it, some wanted to stop it....and I suppose the moves against this will only increase now.
Constituency candidates can stand in list section. The old internal rule has been abolished. I suppose current constituency MSP will want to get on the list (because otherwise...yes, Johann was waiting for Margaret to be defeated...but there's still time for Margaret to see Johann defeated in Pollock next year)
Do some just defeated MPs join Holyrood? If so...there're barely enough spots on the lists!
Feels unfair that he didn't get to see his party recover.
The public have a right to know why this has taken so many years and cost so much public money.
One may also wish that in the meantime he should report to Parliament under privilege exactly what the hell is holding it up.
But that wasn't the main point. My main point is that ANY alternative to the one they chose would have been better for their party's future. No choice could have been as bad as a full coalition with the Conservative party where fundamental pledges were abandoned on acceptance and no control over any single ministry to demonstrate success was given to them.
Coalition with Labour would not have reduced them to 8 seats.
Refusing any deal would not have reduced them to 8 seats.
Supply and Confidence with the Tories would not have reduced them to 8 seats.
A Coalition with the Tories where they controlled a couple of individual departments would not have reduced them to 8 seats.
Even in the worst case scenario where they gave up every pledge in their manifesto in return for AMS PR by parliamentary vote as part of the FTPA would probably have reduced them to 8 seats but at least given them a way back.
Now they are extinct.
Never saw that coming.
Charles Kennedy was only eighteen months or so older than me so his death raises those questions you don't like to think about too much.
I knew him more in the late 80s and early 90s when I was politically quite active in Sutton and elsewhere. I had first met him at a Liberal Assembly when he spoke on the fringe and then he was the only SDP MP who openly supported the merging of the two parties in 1987 (Robert MacLennan came along later in the process).
I was delighted to see him as President of the Liberal Democrats and he was the obvious choice to take over from Paddy in 1999. He may not have has Paddy's relentless energy but he worked hard for the party and I remember him campaigning in Romsey in 2000 to get Sandra Gidley elected.
He came to the Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZed) soon after it opened and I was invited as a Party member to go along as one of the crowd but it was great to see him and he gave an impromptu address to us afterward which was full of wit and humour.
Much of the real business of Party Conferences (as those who have attended them will know) is done at the bars and the fringe meetings so to see him or another MP at a bar raised no eyebrows back then and I had no idea back then there was any problem.
Charles had the good fortune of leading the Party at a time of unprecdented Conservative weakness and opportunity and his courage in opposing the Iraq War, in the face of vitriolic comments from much of the Press, was incredible and he was able to reach out beyond the normal core Liberal Democrat vote into Labour areas as well as Conservative ones.
2005 was a disappointment - the Conservatives dumped IDS just in time and retreated to their core handing the election to Blair. Had Labour fallen short of a majority - well, I've often wondered what Charles would have done ? The circumstances of his departure from the leadership are well documented and didn't reflect well on the Party but as someone else once said "politics is a rough trade" and it takes no prisoners.
To lose a parent at any time is difficult as I can attest but to lose both a father and to be thrown out of a job after over thirty years must have been doubly hard. Perhaps, instead of gloating at the fall of political opponents, we might ourselves consider these are human beings with all that entails and consider whether their misfortune is really worth all our glee.
RIP Charles Kennedy 1959-2015
That means one hell of a lot of rats fighting it out in a very, very small sack.
Sad and surprising to hear of Kennedy's death. Easy to forget, despite being around for ages, he was only in his fifties.
I agree that the Chilcott delay is becoming a farce.
✔@BBCNormanS
Charles Kennedy was proved right over Iraq - Paddy Ashdown @bbcr4today
Paddy did not say that he was wrong on Iraq in supporting Blair behind the scenes, undermining Charles.
There would have been political stagnation and probably (almost certainly?) a November 2010 election.
Also remember that the economic crisis was in full swing, and stability was needed.
The only practical options were the deal they did with the Conservatives, or no deal and another election, which they would fight from a very weak position - the self-proclaimed kingmaker who failed to choose a king.
Since I believe political parties hold too much power, I am keen to make this point as often as possible. Too many poor candidates get into parliament because people vote for party over candidate.
It should also be pointed out that by May 2010, the economic crisis was entirely over, only the method of recovery was in question. The stability argument and FUD about Interest Rates were entirely Tory canards. But then PB Tories and too many others seem to think the government you have makes much difference to the economy. History suggests it is largely irrelevant.
Like Thatcher and Blair before him, Cameron has been able to persuade non-Conservatives to vote Conservative as a mark of personal support. I imagine (or would like to think) there is some research going on to ascertain what degree of Conservative support was personalised support for Cameron.
I also disagree with your economic points.
Also the Tories are overrepresented in South of Scotland, they can lose constituencies without gaining any list compensation (the same also applies to the Liberals in Highlands and Islands, if they lose Orkney or Shetland they won't get a List seat in return).
On 2011 results Labour do not have this concern. However, that was based on a 26% list vote. Their list vote could drop substantially given their 2015 performance. If Labour hold on to 25% of the Vote they could expect to retain nearly 30 seats. But as the Spartans say "If...."
French Open tennis quarter-finals. In the first QF today I fancy TSONGA to have a great chance of causing a shock and beating Nishikori. He's on home soil and was very impressive against Berdych yesterday. Nishikori's second serve looks there for the taking and TSONGA has the power play to do some damage. Nishikori has won 4 out of 5 matches which is why TSONGA is a juicy 14/5 with stanjames.com but all of these were on hard courts and I've often seen TSONGA raise his game for the big occasions. I'd take 7/4+. I'm also backing Nishikori winning 3-2 in sets at 6/1 (Boylesports.com and Sportingbet.com) as a saver.
In the 3rd QF tomorrow I'm taking on Andy Murray. Murray is on a good run but has played FERRER four times on clay and never beaten him on the red stuff. FERRER has actually won more tournaments than Murray this year and his distinctive style means that he often franks form when there's a head-to-head surface advantage. FERRER is 15/8 with boylesports.com and 7/4 with Ladbrokes. You can get 11/2 and 5/1 on a Murray 3-2 sets win and I'm also taking that as a modest saver.
Until Scottish Labour find a reason why anyone would vote for them, there will be no end to their misery. The problem is more acute for them in Holyrood than in Westminster.
My first suggestions would be:
1) Make support or opposition to independence a matter of private conscience at every level of the party. They can't afford to exclude 45% of the electorate from their ranks.
2) Break all links with the Westminster party and establish a relationship with it akin to that held by the SDLP (Welsh Labour would benefit from this too).
3) Introduce a fine system for any MSP who mentions the Tories.
Southam replied stating ld colleagues who may treated Kennedy poorly re the covering up drinking Runnymede referred to etc did not preclude them feeling sad about his death. He said ' someone they knew well' in relation to Kennedy. That's clearly a reference to people who knew Kennedy feeling sad whatever happened politically.
You then wondered how many of society felt the same or wouldn't understand why those people - in reply to Southam who was talking about ld colleagues of Kennedy - would feel emotional. That gives an implication of thinking some ratio of the public think those colleagues would not feel emotions and therefore that you might be one of those people who thinks that, hence my making it a question not a statement.
I apologise if I have misread your intent but following my chain of thought above I trust you will see the reasoning behind it and genuine confusion. I certainly did not miss runnymeades post, but yours as laid out does not appear to reference the same people.
If you meant to comment on people professing emotion on here that was most unclear given the reference to 'such people' feeling emotional in reply to a post referring to ld colleagues of Kennedy being emotional.