26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[Mr Poppy]

?

[Mr Poppy]

Elsewhere in R&W latest:

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of -8% (+3)
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s net approval rating stands at -8% (+7)

Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at +3% (-8)

And finally, Keir Starmer (39%, -2) leads Rishi Sunak (36%, +2).. better PM.

[johntel]

Mar 27, 2023 15:35:13 GMT davwel said:

thylacine

That 86% of the SNP members voted in the leadership for two candidates with non-standard-for-Scotland religious backgrounds (each 40% plus) is indicative and signifcant for me.

These members were not inclined or receptive to "othering" because they didn`t know about the present views in the two different fellowships, or worried by past pronouncements by some in the faiths. Instead they voted on the candidates` good qualities, regularly shown in their recent government roles and in the leadership public debates.

This indicates to me that the SNP party is less prone, though not immune, from the dogmatic and wilder fights that tarnish our three main UK parties.

And I hope Humza will give fitting roles to both Kate and Ash.

How can you possibly know the motivation of all those people davwel?

I suspect that as in all elections some voted against the candidates they didn't like for one reason or another. 

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

I assume progressive encompasses a much wider range of LoC thought than liberal. Liberal works in the US as a description of the left but not the UK due to its association with the Liberal/Liberal Democrat party.

I would regard myself as a progressive but not a liberal, being a democratic socialist in outlook. I guess many Greens would also be happy with 'progressive' but not liberal. 

[oldnat]

As a side issue to the leadership election a useful reminder that, despite having been dragged out of the EU by the Tories, the SNP remains a member of the European Free Alliance.

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 14:39:14 GMT hireton said:

The Goodwin grift continues. Same article he has been writing for years:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/27/labour-lose-election-three-hurdles-working-class-immigration

The interesting thing is that the Guardian article gives the link to where he is getting his 'only 13% of people are progressive' thing from, and it turns out to be a very dubious number - or at least it would be as true to say that only 15% of people are definitely conservative. The implication of the article is the other 87% are socially conservative, but not all these 'tribes' are in fact so. 

www.britainschoice.uk/

In fact if you add up the tribes who are described as 'socially liberal; liberal; and/or progressive' it equals 50% of the population, which rather undermines the whole of Goodwin's argument. 
 

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

I think that Gordon Brown established that Progressive is not to be equated with Liberal.

[steve]

@davwell
86% of SNP party members didn't vote for anyone a third of members didn't bother to vote.
The SNP isn't unique in failure to get member involvement it's an issue across several parties the SNP at around 70% isn't actually that bad but given they are effectively choosing the first minister as well nothing to write home about either.

Both Labour and Lib dems only routinely manage around 60% which is pretty pathetic ,even the Corbyn 2015 election saw 25% of members not bother.
The Green party are by far the worst with just 21% of their members voting in the last leadership competition.

The only party that does seem to engage with their membership on the odd occasion that it gives them a choice is the Tories who routinely manage 85%+ participation.

I've always found it bizarre , paying subs entitles you to a say in parties structure and it's leaders and then people don't bother to exercise it.

Why join in the first place!

[hireton]

Latest R&W Westminster VI poll:

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 16:28:40 GMT steve said:

@davwell
86% of SNP party members didn't vote for anyone a third of members didn't bother to vote.
The SNP isn't unique in failure to get member involvement it's an issue across several parties the SNP at around 70% isn't actually that bad but given they are effectively choosing the first minister as well nothing to write home about either.

Both Labour and Lib dems only routinely manage around 60% which is pretty pathetic ,even the Corbyn 2015 election saw 25% of members not bother.
The Green party are by far the worst with just 21% of their members voting in the last leadership competition.

The only party that does seem to engage with their membership on the odd occasion that it gives them a choice is the Tories who routinely manage 85%+ participation.

I've always found it bizarre , paying subs entitles you to a say in parties structure and it's leaders and then people don't bother to exercise it.

Why join in the first place!

My understanding is that the Green's don't really like the whole concept of 'leaders' much, so perhaps not surprising. I have some sympathy with that point of view. 

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

Lots of definitions on 'urban dictionary'. This one from 2008 probably has some merit:

"A word left-wingers now use to describe themselves, because the word liberal has gained a negative connotation.
Once the term progressive has been dragged through the mud by right-wing pundits, a new term will again be chosen"

The new term being 'woke' but arguably that term has now been dragged through the mud by right-wing pundits, so a new term will perhaps be chosen? 

Some other good ones (IMO of course): "Progressives claim to want to help out the average Joe but really want everyone to live according to their politically correct, elitist socialist agenda. Progressives are also much nastier people than liberals, and are often hypocrites" 

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive

Those who call themselves "progressive" might prefer some of the definitions. We capybaras are chilled and happy to be called anything - well maybe not guinea pigs, we're definitely not guinea pigs. 

[oldnat]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

It's one of these terms that is essentially meaningless (like "Moderates" in the Labour Party) and can be (and has been) used by very different people at different times in different places.

From the 1920s to 1970s the "Progressive Party" - which was a loose amalgamation of anti-Labour groups - fought local elections in the urban areas of Scotland. When Murdo Fraser campaigned for leadership of SCon and wanted to break the union with the Conservatives in England, one of the names being suggested for it was the "Scottish Progressive Party".

Currently in political discourse in the UK it is widely used to include political parties which advocate economic redistribution and greater social equality, but it wouldn't be very useful to try to be more precise than that - or to expect the usage of the term to maintain that sense in the future.

[davwel]

johntel

Yes. Some vote against, some see the qualities and vote for candidates. I do both when casting my floating votes.

Scots are quite similar to English people, but on the evidence from leadership elections and recent fighting within parties, are less prone meantime to the dogmatic and wilder outlooks that have caused bad judgements on leadership and policies in England.

[alec]

Re the definition of 'progressive'; In my mind, in politics, it means a progressively lengthy debate about what progressive means. Ideally I'd like this to be combined with the modern music definition, so we could have politicians endlessly and progressively debating about how it's defined, while wearing shiny flares and outlandish shoes. That would be (marginally) more interesting

[neilj]

Delta Poll

[leftieliberal]

Mar 27, 2023 11:56:52 GMT oldnat said:

Those wishing to reduce litter would be better to stop blocking the Scots deposit return scheme.

"Soft drinks firms including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the makers of Irn Bru have urged the next first minister to deliver a recycling scheme on time.

The British Soft Drinks Association asked the new leader to make the deposit return scheme a "top priority".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65079902?at_format=link&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=F5C57C1A-CBED-11ED-8EB3-CDE0D89D5CC3&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_campaign=Social_Flow

I thought that was the stuff that rotted your teeth faster than anything else. To improve the health of the Scots, surely banning all sugary soft drinks would be more effective. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 16:59:51 GMT alec said:

Re the definition of 'progressive'; In my mind, in politics, it means a progressively lengthy debate…

well you and Danny haven’t gotten involved yet so it could be ok! Besides it’s quite hard to have a lengthy debate on the matter if no one actually says what it is. Had some interesting chats in the past about what liberalism is on the old board that were short and sweet and quite useful. 

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - only joking.

[leftieliberal]

Mar 27, 2023 17:07:45 GMT neilj said:

Delta Poll

Deltapoll partly reversing their shock lead-narrowing poll from last week.

[Rafwan]

Mar 27, 2023 16:24:45 GMT pjw1961 said:

Mar 27, 2023 14:39:14 GMT hireton said:

The Goodwin grift continues. Same article he has been writing for years:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/27/labour-lose-election-three-hurdles-working-class-immigration

The interesting thing is that the Guardian article gives the link to where he is getting his 'only 13% of people are progressive' thing from, and it turns out to be a very dubious number - or at least it would be as true to say that only 15% of people are definitely conservative. The implication of the article is the other 87% are socially conservative, but not all these 'tribes' are in fact so. 

www.britainschoice.uk/

In fact if you add up the tribes who are described as 'socially liberal; liberal; and/or progressive' it equals 50% of the population, which rather undermines the whole of Goodwin's argument. 
 

The model used is based substantially on cluster analysis. Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the report is in the first paragraph of p35.

“Cluster analyses do not establish causal relationships, but rather identify meaningful associations and commonalities.”

The first part of this sentence tells us something; the second part is flimflam.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 17:12:49 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - only joking.

well ok but you had a go at Prog Rock, which is beyond the pale. Accordingly you are required to listen to “Close to the Edge” in its entirety, by Yes. 

youtu.be/GNkWac-Nm0A

[steve]

Sir Graham Brady lining up his sixth job in addition to his role as an elected mp and chair of the Tory 1922 committee.

There's always room for another bite from the trough.

youtu.be/UswbkeyGDLU

[oldnat]

Mar 27, 2023 16:28:40 GMT steve said:

@davwell
86% of SNP party members didn't vote for anyone a third of members didn't bother to vote.
The SNP isn't unique in failure to get member involvement it's an issue across several parties the SNP at around 70% isn't actually that bad but given they are effectively choosing the first minister as well nothing to write home about either.

Both Labour and Lib dems only routinely manage around 60% which is pretty pathetic ,even the Corbyn 2015 election saw 25% of members not bother.
The Green party are by far the worst with just 21% of their members voting in the last leadership competition.

The only party that does seem to engage with their membership on the odd occasion that it gives them a choice is the Tories who routinely manage 85%+ participation.

I've always found it bizarre , paying subs entitles you to a say in parties structure and it's leaders and then people don't bother to exercise it.

Why join in the first place!

There are many reasons why people join a political party - as Hancock noted in the Blood Donor - "Become a blood donor, or join the Young Conservatives? But as I'm not looking for a wife, and I don't play table tennis, here I am".

There are something over 110,000 members of political parties in Scotland - 65% of them in the SNP and a further 15% in SLab, with others in the 4-6k range.

The SNP is the nearest to a "mass membership" party in GB - though nothing like the proportions of the population who were members of parties in Hancock's day, when that term had more meaning. While few if any members would have joined the SNP to play ping pong, many simply did so as a way of showing their support for independence - and giving some financial support while they could afford it!

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

Hi c-a-r-f-r-e-w , its been a while since I read The Progressive Dilemma, and in the context that Marquand uses, its much more linked to Social Democracy / Socialist / Marxist notions of societal change. As with all political labels it can be difficult to pin down, but if I was to have a punt at distinguishing it from traditional political liberalism, 'progressive' places greater emphasis on meaningful structural changes to society, in both the social and economic spheres with an emphasis on a more equal and just society. The focus is more on 'society' rather than 'individual'. 

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 17:09:18 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 27, 2023 16:59:51 GMT alec said:

Re the definition of 'progressive'; In my mind, in politics, it means a progressively lengthy debate…

well you and Danny haven’t gotten involved yet so it could be ok! Besides it’s quite hard to have a lengthy debate on the matter if no one actually says what it is. Had some interesting chats in the past about what liberalism is on the old board that were short and sweet and quite useful. 

Ok - to me "progressive" implies change and positive change at that. Logically it has to be the opposite of conservative (small 'c'). Hence I have no objection to being called progressive, although it is not what I would call myself. Not sure it really gets more complex that that.

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 17:17:02 GMT leftieliberal said:

Mar 27, 2023 17:07:45 GMT neilj said:

Delta Poll

Deltapoll partly reversing their shock lead-narrowing poll from last week.

As many of us predicted. 

[neilj]

Sunak has a lot of ground to make up

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 16:38:44 GMT oldnat said:

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

It's one of these terms that is essentially meaningless (like "Moderates" in the Labour Party) and can be (and has been) used by very different people at different times in different places.

From the 1920s to 1970s the "Progressive Party" - which was a loose amalgamation of anti-Labour groups - fought local elections in the urban areas of Scotland. When Murdo Fraser campaigned for leadership of SCon and wanted to break the union with the Conservatives in England, one of the names being suggested for it was the "Scottish Progressive Party".

Currently in political discourse in the UK it is widely used to include political parties which advocate economic redistribution and greater social equality, but it wouldn't be very useful to try to be more precise than that - or to expect the usage of the term to maintain that sense in the future.

I’m finding it interesting reading up on the history of it a bit. (Re: redistribution and equality, From what I see so far it seems like it might be bigger on social equality than economic equality but it’s early days…)

[steve]

oldnat
I mean it's not my party but the 432000 Labour party membership is around six times the size of the SNP but even at its peak the SNP membership was equivalent to only about 3% of the adult population
And while that does mean that the SNP have a somewhat higher membership to voter ratio compared to Labour it's not that significant.

Back in the 1950's party membership used to be immense the Tories had nearly three million members Labour a mere one million.

Losing more than 90% of their membership down to around 170,000 doesn't seem to have hurt the Tories electability neither does losing around 20% since 2019 seem to have reduced Labour's chances.

[steve]

A rare case of a BBC journalist calling out Tory crap.

youtu.be/hXyrFlGrTmQ