FlammableD
Banned
Scottish Tories starting BetterTogether 2.0 nice and early
Have they always had "and Unionist" in their name?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Have they always had "and Unionist" in their name?
Audioboxer
Member
Unsure. I recently moved house to one of Scotlands bluest areas (Ayrshire). It wasn't on any leaflets I used to get previously (Lanarkshire).
Officially since 1912, when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, iirc.
Audioboxer
Member
The notion of suggesting it is abhorrent to have another referendum even in the wake of 2014 promising the world about EU membership. Not so much saying we'd vote no, or we believe in the Union (those are big duh's from the Conservatives), but the flipping out about the mere prospect of another vote. This is pretty childish given that Nicola has made it clear she would do everything else first to try and make Brexit a smooth exit, and she has. It's May dropping bombs everywhere, the latest being nuking single market prospects and riding Donald Trumps meat wagon.
Also divisive plans? This country voted a majority in favour of remain. How about at least acknowledging that when talking about divisions and Scotland versus rUK. This isn't "England" up here, and that's precisely the reason Labour and Conservative got wiped out. They need to retune their tactics when addressing the people up here. Sure there is pockets of hardcore Tory support in Scotland, as I said I now live in a blue area, but the less these "opposition" parties to the SNP do to try and work with the Scottish people at large the more they will get marginalised.
Pretty much the whole issue with the UK summed up right now. You can't shoehorn people, but instead need to adapt to changes in beliefs/opinions. This is actually advice in FAVOUR of Scottish Conservative making up losses. However, as we all know people would double down on my words above and sling mud at them. See how that continues to work out though, constantly whining about other parties and things you don't like very rarely does anything to gain you support, it just emboldens your hardcore supporters. When you're bleeding support that isn't really all that much of a positive, it just keeps those in your bubble happy.
Really sorry mate but I think you are just seeing this through the lense of being a passionate son and independence voter. You can't say it's divisive and wrong for the tories to talk about not having a referendum when you have Alex Salmond and Nicola literally threatening one.
Heck. As I've said before I now support Scottish independence if this Brexit farce continues - but the tories should be able to say they oppose a new referendum given their position and what everyone else is doing.
Heck. As I've said before I now support Scottish independence if this Brexit farce continues - but the tories should be able to say they oppose a new referendum given their position and what everyone else is doing.
Audioboxer
Member
The Tories can say what they want, I've never said otherwise. My 2 cents though are the above suggesting I do not know how well it's going to go down making their political marketing mostly comprised of talking about divisions to a nation that feels more divided between Scotland/rUK than it does between SNP/Conservatives.
They're refusing to even acknowledge the Brexit vote and how it panned out in Scotland. Risky tactic if you ask me.
Also, I do agree with you on the general wait and see Brexit remarks. I explicitly said here and here in the other on-going topic nothing should be done until we see how Brexit is fully going to play out.
I think they are playing to a different audience than you tbh. Clearly what they have been doing in Scotland over the last few years has been working for them, and I suspect their aim is to consolidate the % of the population that is worried and doesn't want further upheaval, rather than trying to get people to switch.
Audioboxer
Member
It hasn't been working, that is my point.
They have ONE seat now in Scotland. The conservative party up here has pretty much been DOA for ages. It's Labour who blew everything they had north of the border last time around. Pretty much because they veered into becoming Tory Lite.
Was it not a big enough piece of evidence to reflect on that while 55% of the country wanted to vote NO in 2014, many of those voters then turned around and voted SNP in the General election to scoop up 56 seats?
As I said the Tories have their hardcore voters here, and there are still plenty of Unionists in Scotland, but we might need to revisit what "working for them" means when they get the results they do here across the country. I doubt they'll ever break mould from towing the Westminster march, and the same goes for Labour, and that is what shows the real divisions in Scotland, it's between Scotland and the rUK. Parties who don't adapt but just want to try and enforce Westminster's ways end up being marginalised.
You may want to argue Westminster's ways are the right ways, which you have every right to politically do so, but any shrewd politician north of the border has to realise if they care about picking up votes and not just screaming in an echo chamber they have to respect a countries changing political scene.
You're sort of making my point for me here.
You are not their target market. They are not interested particularly in the voters who think Brexit means another referendum, or that Brexit shows how broken the system is. Those votes are never going to be theirs. But there is a sizeable chunk of the population of Scotland that believes in a United Kingdom, and it's a fair bet a decent % of those are also in support of leaving the EU. That's who they are targeting and need. They got 15% in the last general election, andnyou can guarantee they will do better next time around (as labour continues to die).
It's the same for me - the local Tory campaign literature in my area is utterly alien to me and makes no sense at all, and a massive vote loser (I'm in a borough that is significantly more pro eu than Scotland even). But that's because I don't talk with, or associate with, the voters they are targeting. They know I'm a lost cause, so they don't bother.
You are not their target market. They are not interested particularly in the voters who think Brexit means another referendum, or that Brexit shows how broken the system is. Those votes are never going to be theirs. But there is a sizeable chunk of the population of Scotland that believes in a United Kingdom, and it's a fair bet a decent % of those are also in support of leaving the EU. That's who they are targeting and need. They got 15% in the last general election, andnyou can guarantee they will do better next time around (as labour continues to die).
It's the same for me - the local Tory campaign literature in my area is utterly alien to me and makes no sense at all, and a massive vote loser (I'm in a borough that is significantly more pro eu than Scotland even). But that's because I don't talk with, or associate with, the voters they are targeting. They know I'm a lost cause, so they don't bother.
Audioboxer
Member
Well yeah, but I just personally think this is an incredibly risky tactic. To the point where I personally think I could do a better job of campaigning FOR staying in the UK than they are. It just requires a bit more empathy and understanding... You can still have your core message of being part of the UK without annexing yourself off into such a rigid echo chamber.
However, I guess those are two traits often missing in politicians/political parties.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's in England. Scotland used to have a separate political party named the Unionist Party separate to the Conservatives, although they worked together on effectively everything and were de facto the same party (think CDU/CSU in Germany). They didn't officially merge until 1965. Before that, the Conservative Party in Scotland contested under the name the Scottish Conservative Party, and didn't use the "and Unionist" element that was present in England.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Think Corbyn might have over-reached this time. Half his cabinet is threatening to quit and unlike last time, there's nobody to replace them with. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another leadership challenge shortly. Clive Lewis could probably oust him under current conditions.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Two more about to resign, apparently.
I dont get why he's doing this. Or rather, I think I might but it's only the result of his own utter ineptitude and failure of leadership, which is resulting in him enforcing a three line whip.
Labour is torn down the middle by this result. Like every labour leader, he has to balance the pro and anti eu sentiments in the party, it's members and its voters. Unlike previous leaders, he lacks the ability to have even the barest coherent and understandable policy on Europe. So instead of that, he has to use a three line whip to unite the MPs.
If the party had a coherent, well communicated strategy for Brexit he wouldn't face so many MPs rebelling and he'd be able to afford the hit for some voting against it. But because he doesn't, he needs to force the issue.
(I still don't understand how labour can at the same time guarantee they will vote for article 50 and say they are insisting on protections. It's one or the other - bite the fucking bullet and say you won't vote for it if they can't guarantee jobs and funding, or bite the bullet and say its going through unopposed, but stop trying to do both!)
Labour is torn down the middle by this result. Like every labour leader, he has to balance the pro and anti eu sentiments in the party, it's members and its voters. Unlike previous leaders, he lacks the ability to have even the barest coherent and understandable policy on Europe. So instead of that, he has to use a three line whip to unite the MPs.
If the party had a coherent, well communicated strategy for Brexit he wouldn't face so many MPs rebelling and he'd be able to afford the hit for some voting against it. But because he doesn't, he needs to force the issue.
(I still don't understand how labour can at the same time guarantee they will vote for article 50 and say they are insisting on protections. It's one or the other - bite the fucking bullet and say you won't vote for it if they can't guarantee jobs and funding, or bite the bullet and say its going through unopposed, but stop trying to do both!)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...emy-corbyn-committed-labour-voting-article-50
This is why he's doing it. I think some Labour supporters are under the impression that if they boot Corbyn, everything will suddenly be great and we'll storm back to government. It is woefully untrue. The party is structurally fucked. If Labour becomes the party of Remain, all polling evidence shows it will be annihilated. The trouble is, the Labour membership is strongly pro-Remain. Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, has to be pro-Brexit. All of his cabinet, as potential leadership challengers, have to be pro-Remain. There's no solution.
This is why he's doing it. I think some Labour supporters are under the impression that if they boot Corbyn, everything will suddenly be great and we'll storm back to government. It is woefully untrue. The party is structurally fucked. If Labour becomes the party of Remain, all polling evidence shows it will be annihilated. The trouble is, the Labour membership is strongly pro-Remain. Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, has to be pro-Brexit. All of his cabinet, as potential leadership challengers, have to be pro-Remain. There's no solution.
Oh I know - labour is screwed. I'm just astonished at his utter lack of political skills and management that puts him in this position, yet again. I wonder if he has finally realised that leading a party is more than making speeches to your supporters and brainstorming policy?
On the downside, labour being run by him / McDonnell / Abbott. No wonder it's so bad. Hardly a group of amazing talent there...
Edit: I think ultimately, unless Brexit does bring about complete economic collapse, labour as we know it is finished. It can't survive as the democrats have on the minority and inner city vote. It's a coalition that lacks unity and purpose at odds with itself. It's far worse than the Tory party ever was in the wilderness years - the tories were comprised of eu haters and eu Luke warmers. Ken Clarke is the only one left who loves the eu. Labour is far worse than that, its polar opposites amongst its voting base and they don't have anyone with near enough talent to unite both of those wings of the party.
On the downside, labour being run by him / McDonnell / Abbott. No wonder it's so bad. Hardly a group of amazing talent there...
Edit: I think ultimately, unless Brexit does bring about complete economic collapse, labour as we know it is finished. It can't survive as the democrats have on the minority and inner city vote. It's a coalition that lacks unity and purpose at odds with itself. It's far worse than the Tory party ever was in the wilderness years - the tories were comprised of eu haters and eu Luke warmers. Ken Clarke is the only one left who loves the eu. Labour is far worse than that, its polar opposites amongst its voting base and they don't have anyone with near enough talent to unite both of those wings of the party.
Pretty much. The Tory base seems fairly unified, and the appearance of competence gets them enough voters in the middle to push them into big majority territory in our system with 40% or so of the vote. Labour is woefully divided on the single biggest issue of our lifetimes, and until they resolve that they can't win.
Personally think they need to get a leader whose position will be : Brexit has to happen, but we should have a better relationship with Europe to secure jobs and travel. The tories have fucked it up by being so hostile, we have a role to play in Europe and labour can do it better .
That was essentially blairs position in 97 minutes the.l Brexit. As much as I loathe Brexit, it's going to happen and labour has to get used to it. They cannot be the party of remain, their coalition is too fragile.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This already is Corbyn's position. Yes, I know, he's terrible at messaging and leadership and everything else, but he's already at this point you identify (and which agree is the right point to be at). The trouble is twofold. Corbyn is so bad at messaging he can't possibly get this across. But, to replace Corbyn, you need to win a leadership contest. To win a leadership contest, you need to be Remain. Catch 22 - there's no way to get a soft Brexit leader with good messaging in right now.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Would a Labour-Lib Dem coalition be good for the NHS? Obviously Labour would be, but the Lib Dems are dead-centre.
The Lib Dems would also keep some of Corbyn's crazy ideas out.
There's nothing wrong with drawing a very clear, red line in the sand for your party, it's in their full name after all.
Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems feel the same way. You may not like that red line, but that doesn't make it wrong to have principles you stand by. After all, you yourself stand by a different worldview, but I think you feel EU membership was that red line for yourself. Different people have different views...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/747938/Brexit-Scotland-independence-THIRD-SNP-supporters-voted-Brexit-Sturgeon-embarrassment
...including many SNP supporters. Remember that Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Scottish Greens, and many Tories were all anti-Brexit. It was a strange result in which large numbers of people voted for Brexit against their economic interests, even in Scotland outside of the major cities. The council of Moray was virtually evenly split (50.1 remain).
The Lib Dems would also keep some of Corbyn's crazy ideas out.
There's nothing wrong with drawing a very clear, red line in the sand for your party, it's in their full name after all.
Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems feel the same way. You may not like that red line, but that doesn't make it wrong to have principles you stand by. After all, you yourself stand by a different worldview, but I think you feel EU membership was that red line for yourself. Different people have different views...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/747938/Brexit-Scotland-independence-THIRD-SNP-supporters-voted-Brexit-Sturgeon-embarrassment
...including many SNP supporters. Remember that Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Scottish Greens, and many Tories were all anti-Brexit. It was a strange result in which large numbers of people voted for Brexit against their economic interests, even in Scotland outside of the major cities. The council of Moray was virtually evenly split (50.1 remain).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
A LibLab coalition is barely more likely than a Lab majority. The Liberals are dead. I know lots of us here have sympathy for them, but they'really still stagnant in the polls and at best are in range of ~25 seats.
I think the slight difference (and it's possibly more messaging than substantive difference) is that a Blair type figure would be more aggressive about getting the best deal for Britain (a better deal!) whereas Corbyn seems very passive and of two minds on things.
I do agree a leadership change won't fix this because there's no talent capable of doing what's needed. Think Corbyn stays as leader during the Brexit period, then he and his dumb as fuck cronies get kicked out after May wins big time around in 2020 and at that point labour might have a chance to start repairing and sorting out what it is. Might.
Also agree on the lib dems - the bye election results are encouraging, but they just aren't shifting in the polls at all. They might be able to leverage localised remain votes in London and the south to gain more seats, but it's a far cry from the levels they had in 2005 and 2010. Again, maybe if Brexit happens and is catastrophic things will change but it's been 6 months since the referendum and them becoming the main national party for remain and it hasn't altered the bottom line at all.
Learn something new everyday. Interesting stuff.
The Fabian Society put out an analysis paper at the start of the year which explained that for Labour to gain a majority, they'd need a better than 2001 performance. But for the Conservatives to be kicked out of government, Labour/Lib Dems/SNP would only need to gain 30 seats from them.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Interesting use of the word "only", that.
They'd "only" only need to gain 30 seats, and not lose any, and have enough of a common platform to form a government, and have that common platform not piss off the voters.
Jezbollah
Member
To think that Labour in their current state will make gains on their 2015 performance is quite ambitious thinking to say the least.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
And the SNP don't exactly have gains left to make...
You're not wrong! A Lib/Lab/SNP alliance gaining 30 seats would be a more achievable objective than securing an outright Labour majority, but it'd still be exceedingly difficult to achieve, especially in the current climate.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...pendence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act
Thought this was an interesting article abut Sturgeon's problems. If you voted for independence, you were actually more likely to have voted to leave the EU than if you voted for the union, which means Sturgeon's argument that leaving the EU is a reason for Scotland to leave the UK isn't working - it's putting off as many Indy+Leave voters as it attracts Union+Remain voters for no net gain total (as shown in the graph in the link). Definitely challenges the idea that people who voted for independence were necessarily liberal and progressive.
Thought this was an interesting article abut Sturgeon's problems. If you voted for independence, you were actually more likely to have voted to leave the EU than if you voted for the union, which means Sturgeon's argument that leaving the EU is a reason for Scotland to leave the UK isn't working - it's putting off as many Indy+Leave voters as it attracts Union+Remain voters for no net gain total (as shown in the graph in the link). Definitely challenges the idea that people who voted for independence were necessarily liberal and progressive.
CyclopsRock
Member
Some people just like leaving things. I bet those voters just fuck off from house warming's without even saying goodbye.
That would explain why we aren't seeing much change in the polling numbers for Scottish independence.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, it looks like the number of people who prioritize Leaving Europe > Leaving UK is about equal to those who prioritize Staying in Europe > Staying in UK.
blazinglord
Member
I can get the logic of this argument. Sometimes the idea going it alone is very appealing.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Pretty much. The pro-UK/pro-EU argument is essentially the same anyways. The fact that noticeable majorities of the young and women voted against independence made it pretty clear that there's not a mandate among demographics a centre-left party would normally attract more easily, and that the SNP is actually getting a lot of their support from more right-wing capital-N Nationalists. They are always vocal.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, to be fair to the SNP: Tartan Tories are very much a minority of their base, and Nicola Sturgeon does a frankly superb job of managing to marginalize them while maintaining their support. But I do find it very interesting how little they're talked about - it's about a fifth of the Scottish electorate - and I wonder to what extent they'll continue to vote SNP if it maintains its current path.
Camp Freddie
Member
Those are two great demographics articles liked above.
I'm impressed that 79% of Scots voted in both referenda. That's a pretty good turnout!
Looks like we won't get indyref2 which is probably a good thing. Not sure another devisive referendum is what we need right now.
I'm impressed that 79% of Scots voted in both referenda. That's a pretty good turnout!
Looks like we won't get indyref2 which is probably a good thing. Not sure another devisive referendum is what we need right now.
Stead Fast
Banned
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cep-erdogan-turkey-human-rights-not-on-agenda
Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the referendum thread, but it seems May's desperation to not appear desperate over trade deals supersedes any talk of Turkey's human rights issues. Truly, we are going down a dark, sad path.
Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the referendum thread, but it seems May's desperation to not appear desperate over trade deals supersedes any talk of Turkey's human rights issues. Truly, we are going down a dark, sad path.
Ironic, given how leave used Turkey as an example of what we would be getting (MORE IMMIGRANTS!) if we stayed in the EU.
EDIT: tangentially related, to be fair. I'm just making an assumption that a trade deal will include some kind of movement between the countries.
Theresa May repeatedly refuses to condemn Donald Trump's immigration ban
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7551121.html
Fuck May!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7551121.html
Fuck May!!!
PJV3
Member
You're not impressed by her leadership then.
blazinglord
Member
She's not wrong though.
”The United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees, the United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy on refugees."
Not quite sure how the condemnation of another nation's domestic policy benefits us. Sadly, Donald Trump is America's mess, and the Americans will have to sort it out themselves.
JonathanEx
Member
Well, many other nations seem to be able to condemn it. Doesn't look good on the UK if we're unable to find any words to even question it.
Also - as it affects people with dual-nationality, or even if not dual but were born that, some UK citizens are affected by this. She should probably have an opinion on that.
Hell, one of her fucking MPs currently would be banned from America: https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/825445925275500545
But hey, she's the person of the Go Home vans, she's probably all for it.
I guess other world leaders aren't in such desperation that they'll suck up to anyone though for the appearance of being strong, even though we're clearly the smaller partner.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm inclined to agree.
These are people you need to work with, negotiate with and (maybe) wage war with or against. Rushing around condemning other world leaders is a luxury afforded to opposition parties and pressure groups and retired politicians, not something you'd expect a grown-up politician in the real world to do.
Unlike Trump, who does it all the time.
Nations maybe. Their leaders, not so much (at least on a quick glance at the BBC updates).
JonnyDBrit
Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rs-climate-change-differences-prince-charles/
Sidelining the heir to the throne over one of his most well documented positions doesn't seem to bode well on the Special Relationship.
Sidelining the heir to the throne over one of his most well documented positions doesn't seem to bode well on the Special Relationship.
I'll be completely honest with - I'd do the same. As much as I loathe trump, I'm not going to begrudge him the fact he doesn't want to have to listen to Charles prattle on for hours.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked