|
|
Post by RAF on May 5, 2023 20:29:55 GMT
The Amber Valley result is staggering
Lab's performance in the east Midlands has been a highlight for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 5, 2023 20:31:41 GMT
An interesting set of results. Real progress for Labour and the Greens. Well done. The platform is built for 2024. More tomorrow, take care. Support for the Greens - and the LDs - tends to be 'easy come easy go'- ie generally pretty soft and lacking in firm commitment. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 5, 2023 20:32:44 GMT
We’ll see, but getting rid of the Tories after 14 or 15 years, only for the SNP to help reinstate them, doesn’t sound like something that will go down with the average SNP voter. The SNP helped the Tories to get elections at times of their choosing in 1979 and 2019. Every reason to think they would do so again. The SNP exists to get Scottish independence, not to prop up UK Labour governments.
What we have just seen is a clear indication of the unravelling of the '19 Tory electoral coalition. Sunak aint Johnson, and Labour are winning back the support of Leave inclined 'traditional' Labour voters who had deserted the party for UKIP and/or the Tories over the past decade - while still retaining the majority of its own remain, socially liberal base. The LD success in these elections, and also the Greens, is probably much more down to the willingness of centre-right, socially liberal remain voters to desert the Tories. While its tempting to see these results this as a great success for tactical voting and a sign that the country is inherently left-wing etc I think that is the wrong take away. When you look at the results, where Lab, LDs or Greens have done well it has not tended to have been based on a collapse of the vote of the other non-Tory parties, conversely often the others have made modest gains themselves. It has much more been the unravelling of the Tory vote. |
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on May 5, 2023 20:37:36 GMT
Of course. And for what it’s worth, I hope they get their way one day, whenever that is, if that is the will of voters north of the border. Just wondering how the average SNP voter would react if after finally getting rid of the Tories after 14 or 15 years, the SNP voted with them on a regular basis/ all the time. What Tory policies would the SNP support? None, is my guess You’ll have to ask the SNP people referred to in that BBC report, but apparently they say that the price of supporting a minority Labour government would be another referendum. Which of course is a fair enough political manoeuvre, but which would mean that if they don’t get a referendum, they’ll presumably, at least at times, vote with the Tories. If they are not intending to vote with the opposition against Labour then their ‘threat’ isn’t a threat is it? Genuine question - you know the electorate in Scotland far better than me. How would the average SNP voter react if a Labour government was undermined/ replaced sooner than need be by the Tories because, at least in part, because of the actions of the SNP? That’s my only point here. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 5, 2023 20:37:42 GMT
We’ll see, but getting rid of the Tories after 14 or 15 years, only for the SNP to help reinstate them, doesn’t sound like something that will go down with the average SNP voter. The SNP helped the Tories to get elections at times of their choosing in 1979 and 2019. Every reason to think they would do so again. The SNP exists to get Scottish independence, not to prop up UK Labour governments. I'm sure that would be one of their priorities- it is whether someone overplays their hand in negotiations. If asking for a referendum on Scottish Independence is the price for support then that's not a big ask and it's only fair to be given the chance of self determination so it would be Starmer's fault if he turned this down. Ditto if the Lib Dems insisted on a PR referendum. I know referendums may not be popular with some people these days (lol) but at the end of the day if all that either party is asking for is the chance to put something to the electorate then I don't think that's unreasonable. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 5, 2023 20:45:04 GMT
Vale of White Horse (Oxon) left with 0 tories. All LDs and Greens.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 5, 2023 20:47:35 GMT
The SNP helped the Tories to get elections at times of their choosing in 1979 and 2019. Every reason to think they would do so again. The SNP exists to get Scottish independence, not to prop up UK Labour governments. I'm sure that would be one of their priorities- it is whether someone overplays their hand in negotiations. If asking for a referendum on Scottish Independence is the price for support then that's not a big ask and it's only fair to be given the chance of self determination so it would be Starmer's fault if he turned this down. Ditto if the Lib Dems insisted on a PR referendum. I know referendums may not be popular with some people these days (lol) but at the end of the day if all that either party is asking for is the chance to put something to the electorate then I don't think that's unreasonable. I respectfully disagree re- a further Independence Referendum. No PM should yield to pressure for such a vote before the mid-2030s which would mean that a generation had passed since the 2014 Referendum. A much weakened SNP - perhaps having lost half of its Westminster MPs - will have little moral authority to apply such pressure. |
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on May 5, 2023 20:47:42 GMT
Have to say, conservative USP under Thatcher was to favour the middle class and wealthy at the expense of the working class. I won't even attempt to read the rest of your essay when the first sentence is so blatantly untrue. Her governments reduced the basic rate of Income Tax from 33% to around 21%. This was most beneficial to lower earners. Also, council house tenants all over the country and not just Birmingham were allowed to buy their council houses at a knock-down price. When the bloated and inefficient nationalised industries were sold off, they made sure that everyone had the ability to buy shares, not just the wealthy or pension funds. Well where to start with this? If you earned £100k 33% tax is £33k. So taking tax to 21% takes it down to £21k, a £12k improvement. Whoop! For someone on £10 that improvement is £1,200. Hmm, not so good. So it was most beneficial to high earners. And remember, while all this was going on her government was reaping the reward from all that North Sea oil and gas that they were lucky enough to tax. So she could get away with these hugh tax cuts. Future governments would have to deal with the public's continued expectations of low taxation, as the oil revenue reduced. Buying council houses indeed helped those who were currently in them, but she didn't build any more, which was a deliberate policy. That didn't matter because the issue wouldn't come to a head for a generation or two, ie now. She's long gone and the country is well and truely stuffed. Privatisation was not accessible to everyone. I was on the dole, and if I had the money, given the way her government structured the IPO pricing the price of share was inevitably going to jump once they became available, I would have bought some. Johnny smart arse, who thought he knew what he was doing, promptly sold most of them so now it is the big institutions that own these shares. According to ONS only 12% of UK shares are now owned by individuals. So much for her share-owning electorate. What makes me laugh, in an aggressive and cynical way, is the way those who voted Tory hated Socialism, but now, as we have so many pensioners with a guaranteed pension for life, irrespective of how much NI they have contributed, see it as their right to this money, but those who are struggling and need government help through benefits are seen as sc*m. So they get effectively a socialist payment, on the thin excuse that they've paid NI all their working lives. But that same agreement, that the government would help you, is now to be withdrawn from the low paid because the pensioners don't like it. And don't you dare tax their houses to help pay for either their care or to help others. And don't you dare build any more houses, because that may both bring house prices down and rents down. And there is a large group of people who see rents as their pension topup. IMHO, the sooner these boomers die off the better. And the sooner the Tory vote dies with them. Until their power is reduced nothing much will change in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 5, 2023 20:53:24 GMT
You’ll have to ask the SNP people referred to in that BBC report, but apparently they say that the price of supporting a minority Labour government would be another referendum. Which of course is a fair enough political manoeuvre, but which would mean that if they don’t get a referendum, they’ll presumably, at least at times, vote with the Tories. If they are not intending to vote with the opposition against Labour then their ‘threat’ isn’t a threat is it? Genuine question - you know the electorate in Scotland far better than me. How would the average SNP voter react if a Labour government was undermined/ replaced sooner than need be by the Tories because, at least in part, because of the actions of the SNP? That’s my only point here. If there was no deal then the SNP would vote, as it does now, on matters affecting scotland according to SNP policies - that might mean voting down labour bills of course, but that would not mean voting down the Government unless Labour made a bill a confidence vote - if they did that Labour could be accused of allowing Tories back in. Voting 'with' the Tories on Labour bills is not the same as 'letting the Tories back in' or ''bringing down the labour Government' - its just voting on the bills on party lines. If the Labour Government disrespected the will of the Scottish people then I'm pretty sure all SNP supporters would be happy for the SNP MPs to vote in Scotland's interests, bill by bill. Labour would have chosen not to make an arrangement with the SNP and therefore undermined their chances of their minority supported manifesto policies being implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 5, 2023 20:55:21 GMT
I respectfully disagree re- a further Independence Referendum. No PM should yield to pressure for such a vote before the mid-2030s which would mean that a generation had passed since the 2014 Referendum. A much weakened SNP - perhaps having lost half of its Westminster MPs - will have little moral authority to apply such pressure. So if, say 70% of voters in Scotland want independence they have to wait until 2030 before people voted in in other parts of the UK will allow them to even hold a plebiscite on the subject? You've heard of democracy, I assume? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 5, 2023 20:56:19 GMT
The SNP helped the Tories to get elections at times of their choosing in 1979 and 2019. Every reason to think they would do so again. The SNP exists to get Scottish independence, not to prop up UK Labour governments. I'm sure that would be one of their priorities- it is whether someone overplays their hand in negotiations. If asking for a referendum on Scottish Independence is the price for support then that's not a big ask and it's only fair to be given the chance of self determination so it would be Starmer's fault if he turned this down. Ditto if the Lib Dems insisted on a PR referendum. I know referendums may not be popular with some people these days (lol) but at the end of the day if all that either party is asking for is the chance to put something to the electorate then I don't think that's unreasonable. I agree another referendum is a reasonable ask for the SNP but I am equally certain that if not granted they would joyfully ensure an election best suited to aiding the Tories return to UK power - that being the best way to further the cause of independence. The only way for the people of Scotland to ensure they don't live under an extended period of Tory rule is to elect as many Labour and Liberal Democrat and as few Conservative and SNP MPs as possible. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 5, 2023 20:59:05 GMT
I respectfully disagree re- a further Independence Referendum. No PM should yield to pressure for such a vote before the mid-2030s which would mean that a generation had passed since the 2014 Referendum. A much weakened SNP - perhaps having lost half of its Westminster MPs - will have little moral authority to apply such pressure. So if, say 70% of voters in Scotland want independence they have to wait until 2030 before people voted in in other parts of the UK will allow them to even hold a plebiscite on the subject? You've heard of democracy, I assume? There haven't been any polls suggesting 70% of voters in Scotland want independence. It has hovered around 50/50 since 2014 - currently 'No' is ahead. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 5, 2023 21:00:03 GMT
The SNP helped the Tories to get elections at times of their choosing in 1979 and 2019. Every reason to think they would do so again. The SNP exists to get Scottish independence, not to prop up UK Labour governments.
What we have just seen is a clear indication of the unravelling of the '19 Tory electoral coalition. Sunak aint Johnson, and Labour are winning back the support of Leave inclined 'traditional' Labour voters who had deserted the party for UKIP and/or the Tories over the past decade - while still retaining the majority of its own remain, socially liberal base. The LD success in these elections, and also the Greens, is probably much more down to the willingness of centre-right, socially liberal remain voters to desert the Tories. While its tempting to see these results this as a great success for tactical voting and a sign that the country is inherently left-wing etc I think that is the wrong take away. When you look at the results, where Lab, LDs or Greens have done well it has not tended to have been based on a collapse of the vote of the other non-Tory parties, conversely often the others have made modest gains themselves. It has much more been the unravelling of the Tory vote. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 5, 2023 21:04:38 GMT
I respectfully disagree re- a further Independence Referendum. No PM should yield to pressure for such a vote before the mid-2030s which would mean that a generation had passed since the 2014 Referendum. A much weakened SNP - perhaps having lost half of its Westminster MPs - will have little moral authority to apply such pressure. So if, say 70% of voters in Scotland want independence they have to wait until 2030 before people voted in in other parts of the UK will allow them to even hold a plebiscite on the subject? You've heard of democracy, I assume? Scotland had a democratic vote in 2014 when the SNP leader and First Minister stated in public that the result would stand for a generation.By the mid-2030s sufficient time will have elapsed for it to be reasonable to consider a further vote - should the people so desire. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on May 5, 2023 21:05:46 GMT
Exactly - and talk of hung parliaments and deals with the SNP just play into the Tories hands in terms of mobilising and getting out their core vote in England. A Starmer govt may not be the bogey man that the possibility of a Corbyn administration was for some Tory voters - but as in '15, the prospects of a coalition involving the SNP could be, and the Tories would make hay out of it.
What we have just seen is a clear indication of the unravelling of the '19 Tory electoral coalition. Sunak aint Johnson, and Labour are winning back the support of Leave inclined 'traditional' Labour voters who had deserted the party for UKIP and/or the Tories over the past decade - while still retaining the majority of its own remain, socially liberal base. The LD success in these elections, and also the Greens, is probably much more down to the willingness of centre-right, socially liberal remain voters to desert the Tories. While its tempting to see these results this as a great success for tactical voting and a sign that the country is inherently left-wing etc I think that is the wrong take away. When you look at the results, where Lab, LDs or Greens have done well it has not tended to have been based on a collapse of the vote of the other non-Tory parties, conversely often the others have made modest gains themselves. It has much more been the unravelling of the Tory vote. I don't believe the Tories have much of a 'core vote' any more - the softies had gone to the Lib Dems for good and the loony right to UKIP or whatever they call themselves these days. The idea that people who didn't bother to vote in the locals will be queueing up to vote for Starmer in 2024 is unlikely I think. I think we'll see a low turnout in the general election. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 5, 2023 21:12:52 GMT
So if, say 70% of voters in Scotland want independence they have to wait until 2030 before people voted in in other parts of the UK will allow them to even hold a plebiscite on the subject? You've heard of democracy, I assume? Scotland had a democratic vote in 2014 when the SNP leader and First Minister stated in public that the result would stand for a generation.By the mid-2030s sufficient time will have elapsed for it to be reasonable to consider a further vote - should the people so desire.
In 2014, ScotGov pointed out that there was no arrangement for a future Edinburgh Agreement, so this might be the only chance "in a generation". That was true then, and is true now. None of the campaigners for indy said it would "stand for a generation". |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 5, 2023 21:13:11 GMT
Scotland had a democratic vote in 2014 when the SNP leader and First Minister stated in public that the result would stand for a generation.By the mid-2030s sufficient time will have elapsed for it to be reasonable to consider a further vote - should the people so desire. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think there should be any time barriers put on voting again on such matter should people vote for parties with a manifesto commitment to do so. If Labour had made a manifesto commitment to rejoin the EU and got more than 50% of the mps then IMO it would be their democratic right under out FPP system to call another EU referendum. If people thought it was too soon they could always vote to stay out, as they could vote NO to Scottish independence if it was voted on again. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on May 5, 2023 21:14:05 GMT
A stark illustration as to how bad the results have been for the tories
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 5, 2023 21:18:14 GMT
There haven't been any polls suggesting 70% of voters in Scotland want independence. It has hovered around 50/50 since 2014 - currently 'No' is ahead. I was using that as a hypothetical example. I want independence but at the moment there is no majority for it. Personally I think the Scottish parliament should have the right to call a referendum on any manifesto committed constitutional matter but should have the sense to only have one when there is polling to suggest it was desired by a majority |
|
|
|
Post by jen on May 5, 2023 21:32:29 GMT
So if, say 70% of voters in Scotland want independence they have to wait until 2030 before people voted in in other parts of the UK will allow them to even hold a plebiscite on the subject? You've heard of democracy, I assume? Scotland had a democratic vote in 2014 when the SNP leader and First Minister stated in public that the result would stand for a generation.By the mid-2030s sufficient time will have elapsed for it to be reasonable to consider a further vote - should the people so desire. The First Minister had no mandate to say this. It was his personal opinion. Anyway, in the UK, in electoral terms, a generation means seven years. Let us also consider the change in playing field that your brexit disaster caused. You told us we could only remain in the EU if we supported English dominance. You were lying. Furthermore, it is up to us whether we want independence or not. We will conduct this discussion internally. You have no say. Any attempt to dispute or block this puts you on the same level as Putin. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 5, 2023 21:34:37 GMT
I'm sure that would be one of their priorities- it is whether someone overplays their hand in negotiations. If asking for a referendum on Scottish Independence is the price for support then that's not a big ask and it's only fair to be given the chance of self determination so it would be Starmer's fault if he turned this down. Ditto if the Lib Dems insisted on a PR referendum. I know referendums may not be popular with some people these days (lol) but at the end of the day if all that either party is asking for is the chance to put something to the electorate then I don't think that's unreasonable. I agree another referendum is a reasonable ask for the SNP but I am equally certain that if not granted they would joyfully ensure an election best suited to aiding the Tories return to UK power - that being the best way to further the cause of independence. The only way for the people of Scotland to ensure they don't live under an extended period of Tory rule is to elect as many Labour and Liberal Democrat and as few Conservative and SNP MPs as possible.
What brought about the welcome (but wholly reversible by a Westminster government) introduction of legislative devolution came about because Labour was scared shitless that without their squad of tame MPs from Scotland, they would have insufficient MPs to impose their wishes on Middle England.
It would, no doubt, please many in England if "these bloody Celts would just shut up and do as they are told". That is, essentially, what you are saying would be best for Scots.
As polling has long suggested, most Scots (whatever their views on the continuance of the UK) would prefer that there was a Labour PM in Downing St rather than a Tory one. I can well understand that, currently, many will simply see removing this corrupt Tory administration as the top priority, but there isn't a single indication that Starmer would enable any better governance of/in Scotland than a moderate Tory PM (which is what he seems likely to be). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 5, 2023 21:49:03 GMT
domjg"There was real progress for another party as well wasn't there? Go on you can say it!" He really can't bring himself to do it. 409 gains and counting.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 5, 2023 21:57:51 GMT
domjg "There was real progress for another party as well wasn't there? Go on you can say it!" He really can't bring himself to do it. 409 gains and counting.
Have the Lib Dems in your area acted with decorum? (I'll get my coat) |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 5, 2023 22:32:02 GMT
I won't even attempt to read the rest of your essay when the first sentence is so blatantly untrue. Her governments reduced the basic rate of Income Tax from 33% to around 21%. This was most beneficial to lower earners. Also, council house tenants all over the country and not just Birmingham were allowed to buy their council houses at a knock-down price. When the bloated and inefficient nationalised industries were sold off, they made sure that everyone had the ability to buy shares, not just the wealthy or pension funds. Well where to start with this? If you earned £100k 33% tax is £33k. So taking tax to 21% takes it down to £21k, a £12k improvement. Whoop! For someone on £10 that improvement is £1,200. Hmm, not so good. So it was most beneficial to high earners. Of course when income tax is a percentage, higher earners will gain more in absolute terms if the rate is reduced, but who would the reduction mean more to? Someone whose net income rose from £67K to £79K or from £6700 to £7900? I would argue the latter. Do you mean that tax rates should never be reduced?Buying council houses indeed helped those who were currently in them, but she didn't build any more, which was a deliberate policy. Not true. www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building#live-tables
Privatisation was not accessible to everyone. I was on the dole, and if I had the money, given the way her government structured the IPO pricing the price of share was inevitably going to jump once they became available, I would have bought some. Johnny smart arse, who thought he knew what he was doing, promptly sold most of them so now it is the big institutions that own these shares. According to ONS only 12% of UK shares are now owned by individuals. So much for her share-owning electorate. But most people now have a pension, and pension funds own many shares, so the people do, indirectly.
What makes me laugh, in an aggressive and cynical way, is the way those who voted Tory hated Socialism, but now, as we have so many pensioners with a guaranteed pension for life, irrespective of how much NI they have contributed, Not true. Pension is proportionate to number of years paid in. If it's a small amount, it will be made up by other benefits see it as their right to this money, but those who are struggling and need government help through benefits are seen as sc*m. Who by?
So they get effectively a socialist payment, on the thin excuse that they've paid NI all their working lives. See answer above.
But that same agreement, that the government would help you, is now to be withdrawn from the low paid because the pensioners don't like it. Are you saying that state pension is to be abolished? I hadn't heard that.
And don't you dare tax their houses to help pay for either their care or to help others. Have you not heard of Council Tax?
And don't you dare build any more houses, because that may both bring house prices down and rents down. And there is a large group of people who see rents as their pension topup. IMHO, the sooner these boomers die off the better. And the sooner the Tory vote dies with them. Until their power is reduced nothing much will change in this country. So you imagine that some unspecified group regards benefits recipients as scum, but you wish death upon another group. Hmm, I wonder which is worse? It must be horrible for you to be so bitter and resentful. You have my sympathy. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 5, 2023 22:33:42 GMT
Against the grain of today's results Tom Wootton has become the Mayor of Bedford, beating incumbent LD Dave Hodgson by 145 votes (0.3%).
Bedford Mayor:
Tom Wootton (C) 15,747
Dave Hodgson (LD) 15,602
Saqhib Ali (LAB) 11,568
Adrian Spurrell (G) 3,795
Alberto Thomas (HE) 887
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2023 22:35:56 GMT
I agree another referendum is a reasonable ask for the SNP but I am equally certain that if not granted they would joyfully ensure an election best suited to aiding the Tories return to UK power - that being the best way to further the cause of independence. The only way for the people of Scotland to ensure they don't live under an extended period of Tory rule is to elect as many Labour and Liberal Democrat and as few Conservative and SNP MPs as possible.
What brought about the welcome (but wholly reversible by a Westminster government) introduction of legislative devolution came about because Labour was scared shitless that without their squad of tame MPs from Scotland, they would have insufficient MPs to impose their wishes on Middle England.
It would, no doubt, please many in England if "these bloody Celts would just shut up and do as they are told". That is, essentially, what you are saying would be best for Scots.
As polling has long suggested, most Scots (whatever their views on the continuance of the UK) would prefer that there was a Labour PM in Downing St rather than a Tory one. I can well understand that, currently, many will simply see removing this corrupt Tory administration as the top priority, but there isn't a single indication that Starmer would enable any better governance of/in Scotland than a moderate Tory PM (which is what he seems likely to be).It does seem to be a thing with the Labour party that their sense of entitlement to left of centre votes means they have great difficulty with the notion that opposition to a Conservative government can manifest itself in ways other than support for a Labour government. The idea that for some people it literally makes no difference, and that Labour may be be part of the problem and not the solution, they find quite incomprehensible.
And yet if you're a Scot who believes in independence it makes no difference. If you're a young person who's worried about being saddled with a lifetime of student debt it makes no difference. If you're a trans person who just wants to live their life like anyone else, it makes no difference. If you believe in a fair voting system, it makes no difference. If you want freedom of movement within the EU, it makes no difference.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 5, 2023 22:49:01 GMT
I agree another referendum is a reasonable ask for the SNP but I am equally certain that if not granted they would joyfully ensure an election best suited to aiding the Tories return to UK power - that being the best way to further the cause of independence. The only way for the people of Scotland to ensure they don't live under an extended period of Tory rule is to elect as many Labour and Liberal Democrat and as few Conservative and SNP MPs as possible.
What brought about the welcome (but wholly reversible by a Westminster government) introduction of legislative devolution came about because Labour was scared shitless that without their squad of tame MPs from Scotland, they would have insufficient MPs to impose their wishes on Middle England.
It would, no doubt, please many in England if "these bloody Celts would just shut up and do as they are told". That is, essentially, what you are saying would be best for Scots.
As polling has long suggested, most Scots (whatever their views on the continuance of the UK) would prefer that there was a Labour PM in Downing St rather than a Tory one. I can well understand that, currently, many will simply see removing this corrupt Tory administration as the top priority, but there isn't a single indication that Starmer would enable any better governance of/in Scotland than a moderate Tory PM (which is what he seems likely to be).I want to see the Tories removed at Westminster and kept out. To the extent that the SNP are an obstacle to that they need to be defeated. I don't trust the SNP to be a reliable anti-Conservative force because their purpose is independence for Scotland not good UK wide and devolved governance. That is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate objective from their point of view, but not my priority. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 5, 2023 22:51:49 GMT
Against the grain of today's results Tom Wootton has become the Mayor of Bedford, beating incumbent LD Dave Hodgson by 145 votes (0.3%). Bedford Mayor: Tom Wootton (C) 15,747 Dave Hodgson (LD) 15,602 Saqhib Ali (LAB) 11,568 Adrian Spurrell (G) 3,795 Alberto Thomas (HE) 887 But only because the Tories rigged the electoral system by changing it to the ridiculous FPTP. I only wish Starmer would grasp the lesson of that fact. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 5, 2023 22:55:26 GMT
It does seem to be a thing with the Labour party that their sense of entitlement to left of centre votes means they have great difficulty with the notion that opposition to a Conservative government can manifest itself in ways other than support for a Labour government.
It is not at all clear that the SNP are in opposition to Conservative government. They actively enabled it in 1979 and 2019 because they thought it would aid their cause. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 5, 2023 22:58:25 GMT
I'm often appreciative of your political insights, but that is historically inaccurate (as well as being partisan crap). For most of my adult life, Scots voters did precisely what you suggest, and got sod all in terms of self-government and a succession of Tory governments.
What brought about the welcome (but wholly reversible by a Westminster government) introduction of legislative devolution came about because Labour was scared shitless that without their squad of tame MPs from Scotland, they would have insufficient MPs to impose their wishes on Middle England.
It would, no doubt, please many in England if "these bloody Celts would just shut up and do as they are told". That is, essentially, what you are saying would be best for Scots.
As polling has long suggested, most Scots (whatever their views on the continuance of the UK) would prefer that there was a Labour PM in Downing St rather than a Tory one. I can well understand that, currently, many will simply see removing this corrupt Tory administration as the top priority, but there isn't a single indication that Starmer would enable any better governance of/in Scotland than a moderate Tory PM (which is what he seems likely to be). It does seem to be a thing with the Labour party that their sense of entitlement to left of centre votes means they have great difficulty with the notion that opposition to a Conservative government can manifest itself in ways other than support for a Labour government. The idea that for some people it literally makes no difference, and that Labour may be be part of the problem and not the solution, they find quite incomprehensible.
And yet if you're a Scot who believes in independence it makes no difference. If you're a young person who's worried about being saddled with a lifetime of student debt it makes no difference. If you're a trans person who just wants to live their life like anyone else, it makes no difference. If you believe in a fair voting system, it makes no difference.
But for actual, real world alternatives to a conservative government there is only one game in town, and getting it into power via the English electorate is going to involve dissimulation and compromise. Once it's there it should have the ability to express it's true self more and if it doesn't then you can judge. There is only one other alternative and that is continued tory government. |
|
