Support NeoGAF

[Pancake Mix]

More than half of Scots do not want another vote on independence to be held in the next few years, according to a poll.

The Panelbase survey of 1,020 voters for the Sunday Times found 51 per cent are not supportive of a second referendum within the next year or two.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said another ballot on the issue is highly likely after the UK voted to leave the European Union despite a majority vote to remain north of the border.

The poll, carried out last week, found support for a second independence referendum before Brexit has fallen from 43 per cent following the vote last June to just 27 per cent.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-poll-majority-oppose-second-referendum-1-4351990

The position of some vocal Nationalist voices on social media proclaiming that Brexit is a deal breaker is not representative or in keeping with most Scottish polls or opinions. As unfortunate as Brexit is, it found a similar "we need to take back control" audience as Nationalist voices anywhere in the UK.

A double digit margin for the UK in 2014 was rather decisive, also. Yes, there has been an unfortunate change in circumstance, but you can't ignore that mandate and assume it's changed, or assume every Scot's voting pattern. The pro-UK coalition in 2014 was very diverse and very decisive.

 

[Razzer]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-deal-for-europe-by-yanis-varoufakis-2017-01

Not really uk politics, but I was wondering what people here would think of this. Ties into the themes of brexit and such.

 

[Jezbollah]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-deal-for-europe-by-yanis-varoufakis-2017-01

Not really uk politics, but I was wondering what people here would think of this. Ties into the themes of brexit and such.

I struggle to take seriously that guy anymore..

 

[cabot]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-poll-majority-oppose-second-referendum-1-4351990

The position of some vocal Nationalist voices on social media proclaiming that Brexit is a deal breaker is not representative or in keeping with most Scottish polls or opinions. As unfortunate as Brexit is, it found a similar "we need to take back control" audience as Nationalist voices anywhere in the UK.

A double digit margin for the UK in 2014 was rather decisive, also. Yes, there has been an unfortunate change in circumstance, but you can't ignore that mandate and assume it's changed, or assume every Scot's voting pattern. The pro-UK coalition in 2014 was very diverse and very decisive.

It should be fairly clear that doing a referendum before anything actually happens is quite a dumb decision.

The earliest they should aim for is 2020.

 

[sohois]

As I'm sure has been mentioned on here many times, there is simply no way that a Scottish independence referendum would make sense unless you have a fairly soft Brexit. England is Scotland's largest trading partner by a huge amount, so any situation where there are tariff barriers between Scotland and England would destroy their economy.

 

[Rodhull]

As I'm sure has been mentioned on here many times, there is simply no way that a Scottish independence referendum would make sense unless you have a fairly soft Brexit. England is Scotland's largest trading partner by a huge amount, so any situation where there are tariff barriers between Scotland and England would destroy their economy.

Scotland is the largest importer of goods for the rest of the uk as well. So it wouldn't make sense for the UK either.

Obviously the plan is them wanting to remain a part of the EU after getting independence so the treaties and tariffs would already be arranged. There's a hell of a lot of ifs and buts before there being likelihood of that happening though.

 

[Protome]

It should be fairly clear that doing a referendum before anything actually happens is quite a dumb decision.

The earliest they should aim for is 2020.

Makes sense. It'd also give Sturgeon (or whoever is in charge at that point, but I don't see Sturgeon stepping down by then, not when she's so popular) a bit of time to negotiate with the EU to actually have a solid plan for re-entry for Scotland. You would hope at least. Solid plans have never really been the SNP's strong point...

 

[Pancake Mix]

Scotland is the largest importer of goods for the rest of the uk as well. So it wouldn't make sense for the UK either.

Obviously the plan is them wanting to remain a part of the EU after getting independence so the treaties and tariffs would already be arranged. There's a hell of a lot of ifs and buts before there being likelihood of that happening though.

The population and economy differential is still huge. Yes, it would hurt the whole UK if tariffs went up in the event of a break-up, but the SNP...first of assuming that's what the Scottish people want and secondly relying on the rUK (which will be less damaged by it) to ensure it doesn't happen is kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It would hurt the entire archipelago, and Scotland most of all. Any exit is going to be messy and unpleasant. Another unfortunate breakup is not what anyone needs right now, as if it ever was.

 

[Conan-san]

Yeah well if they didn't want the Divorce they would stop beating us, quit fighting the neighbours and tell the human wotsit from across the road exactly where he can shove his crap.

 

[Protome]

Further devolution would shut the independence movement up pretty much permanently. And you can bet the moment independence shows signs of gaining popularity again (although i'd still argue that it not losing the popularity it gained during campaigning should be worrying enough to Westminster) there'll be another wave of things devolved to Scottish parliament to kick the can down the road a bit.

At the end of the day, nobody cares about the individual parts like EU membership and such. They care about the political divergence between Scotland and rUK and that there's no way to protect the Scottish people from what the rUK vote for.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Further devolution would shut the independence movement up pretty much permanently.

Isn't this what they said the first time?

 

[Protome]

Isn't this what they said the first time?

Sure and if a more sizeable Devolution was delivered, it would have worked. Maybe not permanently but in the face of a Tory run post Brexit UK, having more power to protect people from rUK's choices would be appealing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Sure and if a more sizeable Devolution was delivered, it would have worked. Maybe not permanently but in the face of a Tory run post Brexit UK, having more power to protect people from rUK's choices would be appealing.

But I'm talking about 1998. The idea of the entire Scottish parliament was that it would throw the nationalists a bone and kill off the independence movement. Instead it gave the SNP a place to cut their teeth (without sending their best down to Westminster) and gain fans, which has got them to the position they're in now.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Isn't this what they said the first time?

But I'm talking about 1998. The idea of the entire Scottish parliament was that it would throw the nationalists a bone and kill off the independence movement. Instead it gave the SNP a place to cut their teeth (without sending their best down to Westminster) and gain fans, which has got them to the position they're in now.

You're correct, the SNP will never be content with the powers of a regional government, a regional government with its own legal system, both civil and criminal (which is unheard of), but still a part of the UK. They exist to oppose the United Kingdom being one sovereign state.

They're asking for things that have never been delivered, such as control over immigration, which is controlled at a national level even in federal countries. Even the exception, places where states/provinces can sponsor immigration, which may just be Australia and Canada, it's a federal power and those provinces act under federal quotas. So that's asking for de facto independence.

Devolution is already rather extensive, but it still has to be viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2016

Devolution has gotten to the point where the Scottish government has very extensive powers for part of a larger nation state, and similar to a largely autonomous federal region in many other countries. Some things are still unitary, but if you want a functioning state that won't drift further and further apart, then it's necessary. It is not done to repress the Scottish people, who were never conquered. Just simply look at the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, which required the continuation of Scots Law and protection for the Presbyterian religion's position as proof of that. The union of multiple nations is something to be proud of and has stood for over 300 years, diverging primary party of support (at times) aside. That is unprecedented.

Labour will not always be as inept as they are right now, you know very well, and they rely on Scottish and Welsh support for every electoral victory they have ever had, and always will, as did the Tories/Scottish Unionist Party at a point in the past actually.

 

[Maledict]

As always I have to step in and point out that labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without the need for any of the Scottish seats - had the SNP won every Scottish seat labour would still have had extremely strong majorities.

That's not to say they don't need them in the future, particularly after the boundary changes, but just to show they didn't 'need' Scottish seats in the past and theoretically could do so again.

(Of course, Scotland has provided vast amounts of political thinking, expertise and skill to both main parties over the years. It's always punched above it's weight in terms of how many first class politicians it produces).

 

[Pancake Mix]

As always I have to step in and point out that labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without the need for any of the Scottish seats - had the SNP won every Scottish seat labour would still have had extremely strong majorities.

Not true!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005_(Scotland)

Would have been a hung parliament in 2005 for sure.

 

[Rodhull]

Not true!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005_(Scotland)

Would have been a hung parliament in 2005 for sure.

Do you mean 2010?

2005 would have still been a Labour majority even if the Tories won all Labour's Scottish seats.

 

[Beefy]

@philhornbyitv
Clive Lewis tells @ITVEmmaH he'll resign from Shad cab next week if amendments to prevent hard Brexit don't get passed
https://mobile.twitter.com/philhornbyitv/status/826490272569765888

The Daily Mail Political Editor Is Being Lined Up As Theresa May's New Spokesperson

James Slack is the frontrunner for the high profile position, which would make him the latest to move from the newspaper to the Conservative government.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterso...-up-as-theresa?utm_term=.sx1lQl7xK#.vdmLjLwV5

 

[Walshicus]

The union of multiple nations is something to be proud of,

[Citation needed]

 

[Pancake Mix]

Do you mean 2010?

2005 would have still been a Labour majority even if the Tories won all Labour's Scottish seats.

Edit: I hope this is correct:

2005: 355, 324 needed for majority (646 total). Here we have a 32 seat majority. Labour won 41 out of a reduced 59 seats in Scotland. If the Tories had won those seats, it would have been a hung parliament. Labour needed those seats

Prior to 2005, Scotland had a disproportionately high number of seats compared to England. Scottish votes were worth more. This was reduced down to levels more similar to England because of the implementation of the Scottish Parliament. The Labour majorities in 1997 and 2001 would not have been "extremely strong" without those Scottish seats.

2001: 413, 330 needed for majority (659 total). Scotland had 72 seats, 56 of which went to Labour. Hence, without any Scottish seats, Labour would have had a 28 seat majority, 357seats total. Comfortable, perhaps, but not huge by any means.

1997: 418, 330 needed for majority (659 total)Scotland had 72 seats, 56 of which went to Labour Without those Scottish seats, a 33 seat majority, 362 seats total.

Again, I hope I got the calculations right.

Now, the notional majority would be large, but 2005 would still have been a hung parliament if the Scottish seats went elsewhere. No party would have had an absolute majority, just like in 2010.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

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.

OK, as a Lib Dem gaffer I have to respond to this.

That's a fascinating opinion. Let's look at recent by-elections.

Witney by-election
Liberal Democrat Liz Leffman 11,611 30.2 +23.4

Cameron's own seat, now in 2020 target range for the Lib Dems.

Richmond Park
Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney 20,510 49.68 +30.41

A serious punch in the face to the government, that Richmond result. And in SW London, an area with other big seats for Lib Dems to gain.

Sleaford
Liberal Democrat Ross Pepper 3,606 11.0 +5.3

Even up a little here, in an area traditionally hostile to Lib Dem candidates.

Coming up we have Copeland, a Brexit-voting seat right next to a certain Tim Farron's constituency, and a fight in Stoke, one of the strongest Brexit-voting areas of the country. In both of theses seats, Lib Dems are anticipating excellent swings. In both of these seats, swings to us may well result in Labour losing said seats to the Tories and UKIP, other Brexiteer parties - something that should be a wakeup call to every single Labour MP in a seat which there's a question of losing.

Moving elsewhere, what about the recent council and mayoral elections?

This was the result for the Lib Dems in the Liverpool mayoral election last year:

Liberal Democrat Richard Kemp 20,598 21.1% +14.77

That was facing down one of the largest and most well-entrenched Labour administrations in the country.

We also gained several councillors. Oh, and the membership's at record-high levels - there's more people involved now than there was when Liverpool was run by the Lib Dems.

"But they're coming from a really low point, so of course their swings look good!" you say.

Well, it's not just swings - we're winning, and winning all over the place. Lib Dems gained, in by-elections, 31 seats on local authorities last year - more than any other party by an extremely comfortable margin. We recently took overall control of Three Rivers council, near Watford.

So no, the Lib Dems are not dead, or irrelevant, or collapsing, or otherwise useless. Considering that the party came close to actual collapse during the coalition, we are in a seriously strong position, we're united behind a leader that we all like (even if there are Lib Dems who wish Farron had Clegg's oratory skillset - he's a step forwards in a lot of ways but he's still weaker than Clegg on that front), debate about the future direction of the party is very healthy, and we're winning - a lot.

To remind you of history: a LOT of people wrote off the post-merger Liberal Democrats as toast in 1990/1991. Yet the party resurged (thanks in significant part to new campaigning techniques and a new generation taking over under Ashdown) and a Blair/Ashdown coalition government was on the cards in early 1997.

Or maybe look at what happened in Canada as a reminder that, no-matter how entrenched a conservative party is, it can always be chucked out by a new generation of Liberals.

Anyway - that's not actually what I'm here to post about today...

Channel 4 put up a couple of edited speeches made in the HoC about Brexit on their Twitter tonight - firstly, Ken Clarke:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/826452015278673921

Good old Ken.

Secondly, Nick Clegg:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/826496162874216449

Given Clegg's history, I thought him referring to the Brexit-backing interests as the moneyed elite a bit OTT - it's easy to spin it around and say he was, and still is, part of that moneyed elite.

The vote isn't being given that much coverage right now - the public understands that it's a formality thanks to Labour siding with the government. But I think it's very interesting due to what will happen immediately afterwards. Corbyn will survive, of course - Blair's moderate Labour party is dead, and Corbyn represents the future direction of Labour now - but more Labour MPs fleeing to warmer climates seems likely.

 

[Jezbollah]

Shadow Environment Secretary Rachael Maskell and Shadow Minister for Diverse Commuinities Dawn Butler have both resigned from the Shadow Cabinet - suspect they will go against the Whip to vote against the Article 50 bill.

 

[PJV3]

Shadow Environment Secretary Rachael Maskell and Shadow Minister for Diverse Commuinities Dawn Butler have both resigned from the Shadow Cabinet - suspect they will go against the Whip to vote against the Article 50 bill.

Is there a record Corbyn is going for in cabinet resignations in one parliament?

 

[killer_clank]

Is there a record Corbyn is going for in cabinet resignations in one parliament?

He almost definitely already has it

 

[Jezbollah]

ooof:

 

[31GhostsIV]

ooof:

Corbyn has to go. How May is polling so highly is beyond me though, apart from the uk being really into punishing itself.

 

[PJV3]

Corbyn has to go. How May is polling so highly is beyond me though, apart from the uk being really into punishing itself.

I think she gets away with it because people don't even consider the opposition at the moment. Politics has almost been written off so little thought is going into her positions, can't possibly vote for the old IRA supporting loony etc.

 

[Maledict]

Corbyn has to go. How May is polling so highly is beyond me though, apart from the uk being really into punishing itself.

There's a earl thing in British politics about 'competance'. People look for someone who they expect can lead, and a lot of floating voters in the middle respond well to an image of competency. It's one reason why the attacks on Miliband worked so well - despite a fairly decent policy platform, he didn't look like a leader and his opposition was fairly shambolic. For all the wretchedness of Brexit, and the dumb stuff they have done, overall they look competent and they look like know what they want to do - even if you disagree with that.

Corbyn doesn't even look like a prime minister to some of his most ardent supporters who I've spoken too - they think of him as some type of John the Baptist figure who won't ever be PM but will change the labour par. If die hard Corbyn fans can't think of him as PM, what hope do you have for the floating voters?

 

[Dirtyshubb]

ooof:

How May is so high is beyond me, what a shit show this country is becoming...

 

[PJV3]

How May is so high is beyond me, what a shit show this country is becoming...

She's done very little so far, we're still in the patriotic afterglow of the referendum, no decisions made, no people really affected as yet in serious numbers.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Corbyn has to go. How May is polling so highly is beyond me though, apart from the uk being really into punishing itself.

Worth remembering that whilst we mostly all dislike Brexit, it did actually win the popular vote. The fact she's popular shouldn't really be a surprise.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Yup - she's doing what her voters want, so she looks good.

The fact that doing what voters want is going to smack them in the face in a couple of years, though, is problematic for folks that would like May to continue as PM.

We're in the same post-truth environment as the USA is. People believe the truth about Brexit is partisan and biased, and only their preferred right-wing news sources are telling them the truth. That is why consumer confidence is unreasonably high, too.

The proof will ultimately be in the pudding.

We have a dedicated Brexit thread, but to say it here - the faster Britain's populace realise we are not getting a trade deal in two years from the EU and we are actually going to be on WTO rules, the faster Brexit's popularity is going to go through the floor.

 

[CyclopsRock]

We have a dedicated Brexit thread, but to say it here - the faster Britain's populace realise we are not getting a trade deal in two years from the EU and we are actually going to be on WTO rules, the faster Brexit's popularity is going to go through the floor.

I'm still not convinced that this'll lead to people blaming the government, though. This situation - a large upheaval based on the outcome of a referendum - is without precedent, really. I just can't imagine a time in the future where people say "Yeah, I know we voted for it, but you shouldn't have done it!" This is made all the more the case, I think, by the obvious lack of counter-factual (That is to say, we'll never know how staying in the EU would have looked in terms of our future prospects).

 

[Number45]

I'm still not convinced that this'll lead to people blaming the government, though. This situation - a large upheaval based on the outcome of a referendum - is without precedent, really. I just can't imagine a time in the future where people say "Yeah, I know we voted for it, but you shouldn't have done it!" This is made all the more the case, I think, by the obvious lack of counter-factual (That is to say, we'll never know how staying in the EU would have looked in terms of our future prospects).

Surely it's significantly easier to forecast the future in the EU than out of it?

The general voting public will only understand that WTO rules are bad when they start feeling the pinch from the poorer deal. It's unlikely that any media they'll listen to will call it out, although on the chance they do it will be entirely the fault of the EU for not giving us some kind of preferential treatment.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm still not convinced that this'll lead to people blaming the government, though. This situation - a large upheaval based on the outcome of a referendum - is without precedent, really. I just can't imagine a time in the future where people say "Yeah, I know we voted for it, but you shouldn't have done it!" This is made all the more the case, I think, by the obvious lack of counter-factual (That is to say, we'll never know how staying in the EU would have looked in terms of our future prospects).

The true believers will not. But we already know that half the public knows they don't want no deal with Europe, and would rather we stay negotiating. That's impossible for May for the reason I've stated many times - leaving the EU close to or after the 2020 GE means that she can't switch the topic away from how she's handled negotiations. If she looks weak - which she will, she's going with a begging bowl to Europe - it drastically harms her chances of resisting both UKIP on the right, who by then should have converted over to being the alt-right party if they want to stay relevant, and the Lib Dems on the left.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm still not convinced that this'll lead to people blaming the government, though. This situation - a large upheaval based on the outcome of a referendum - is without precedent, really. I just can't imagine a time in the future where people say "Yeah, I know we voted for it, but you shouldn't have done it!" This is made all the more the case, I think, by the obvious lack of counter-factual (That is to say, we'll never know how staying in the EU would have looked in terms of our future prospects).

Surely the precedent is Iraq? Everyone voted for the party that did it and returned them to office after they'd done it, but absolutely nobody now thinks they should have done it, even though it had overwhelming public support at the time.

 

[Lirlond]

Scottish Greens secured higher taxes on higher earners. Only an extra £400pp a year, but better than nothing.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Brinsworth & Catcliffe (Rotherham) result:
LDEM: 66.0% (+50.4)
LAB: 17.1% (-26.2)
UKIP: 12.8% (-16.4)
CON: 3.0% (-8.8)
GRN: 1.0% (+1.0)

The above council seat contains Orgreave, the site of the violent confrontation during the Miner's Strike.

Labour gained a seat off of UKIP tonight too in Rotherham(on a lower turnout than the above and a smaller swing).

The May elections are going to be fun.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Brinsworth & Catcliffe (Rotherham) result:
LDEM: 66.0% (+50.4)
LAB: 17.1% (-26.2)
UKIP: 12.8% (-16.4)
CON: 3.0% (-8.8)
GRN: 1.0% (+1.0)

The above council seat contains Orgreave, the site of the violent confrontation during the Miner's Strike.

Labour gained a seat off of UKIP tonight too in Rotherham(on a lower turnout than the above and a smaller swing).

The May elections are going to be fun.

What elections are in May? Council?

I feel like I get to vote on something every year!

 

[HaloRose]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-nuttall-police-election-fraud-9746357

 

[HaloRose]

Corbyn has to go. How May is polling so highly is beyond me though, apart from the uk being really into punishing itself.

Labour needs dan jarvis that's how they will win next election plus he's mine local mp.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Surely it's significantly easier to forecast the future in the EU than out of it?

The general voting public will only understand that WTO rules are bad when they start feeling the pinch from the poorer deal. It's unlikely that any media they'll listen to will call it out, although on the chance they do it will be entirely the fault of the EU for not giving us some kind of preferential treatment.

Right, but what I mean is that even before the referendum, the pound had been tanking a lot. In fact, in the year or so before the referendum result the pound lost more value than it has since - but because it didn't go in one giant block, because Toblerone didn't change its shape til afterwards etc, people seemed either to not notice or just chalk it up to "everything's always getting more expensive, that's life". So when stuff continues to get more expensive post-Brexit, how much will people say "Well, I'm now £x a month worse off because of Brexit", and how much will people say "Yeah, it's still all getting more expensive, just like it always has"?

The true believers will not. But we already know that half the public knows they don't want no deal with Europe, and would rather we stay negotiating. That's impossible for May for the reason I've stated many times - leaving the EU close to or after the 2020 GE means that she can't switch the topic away from how she's handled negotiations. If she looks weak - which she will, she's going with a begging bowl to Europe - it drastically harms her chances of resisting both UKIP on the right, who by then should have converted over to being the alt-right party if they want to stay relevant, and the Lib Dems on the left.

I don't think May needs to worry about the electorate that much. IMO - electorally, in terms of retaining power - she's doing all the right things. Somehow we're in the bizarro world situation where Labour is more divided over Europe than the Tories are (this has always been the Tories' Achilles heel, and somehow Corbyn has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?!) I think people keep waiting for May's poll numbers to drop but they just aren't; People see her as competent and getting on with the business is leaving the EU.

Surely the precedent is Iraq? Everyone voted for the party that did it and returned them to office after they'd done it, but absolutely nobody now thinks they should have done it, even though it had overwhelming public support at the time.

Eh maybe, but that's different for a handful of pretty important reasons. Firstly, a lot of information has come out since then which Tony Blair knew but the electorate didn't - this obviously tars peoples' memory because they feel like they were actively mislead by someone with more information. Whilst there was certainly a lot of ignorance going on during the campaign, it can't really be said to be due to the intentional hiding of information given that all the major parties and the government itself was campaigning to remain. Furthermore, even at the time it was very divisive - those giant, super useful marches in London and whatnot. Finally, returning a government via election is a bit different (but not totally different) to a referendum because you might like the majority of a party's manifesto or policy platform and dislike the Iraq war and you're forced to decide which is more important to you; This isn't the case for the referendum, where voting against the government didn't mean voting for Howard's massively unpopular Conservative party.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

What elections are in May? Council?

I feel like I get to vote on something every year!

Council and mayoral - the latter is important to the Liverpool and Manchester city regions and will probably be the redeeming factors for Corbyn (loses hundreds of councillors, but hey Labour has control of loads of northern city money now)

Nuttall is scaring Labour a lot in Stoke - they seem to think we'd step aside to make it easier for them.

I mean, we won RP despite Labour standing. They should be able to hold Stoke despite us standing, right?

My belief is that Nuttall won't win, for a few reasons:

UKIP are bad campaigners, who have been on the backslide electorally since their high water mark a few years ago, even in Labour areas.

Nuttall getting investigated by the police because he doesn't live in Stoke and pretended to. Lying to the electorate at a by-election is a bad idea.

Stoke, surprisingly, is not actually that hostile to Lib Dems. Half the constituency has vote for Liberal Democrat candidates in the past.

Brexit is a settled matter for most Brexiteer - electing UKIP elects a party with no actual policy.

Labour, for all their fears of losing a lot of votes to UKIP in Oldham in 2015, defended easily there.

My hunch is that Labour have more to worry about losing their remain voters in Stoke to the Lib Dems than losing many votes to UKIP. There's no real reason for a Tory to switch to UKIP, IMO.

 

[PJV3]

Council and mayoral - the latter is important to the Liverpool and Manchester city regions and will probably be the redeeming factors for Corbyn (loses hundreds of councillors, but hey Labour has control of loads of northern city money now)

Nuttall is scaring Labour a lot in Stoke - they seem to think we'd step aside to make it easier for them.

I mean, we won RP despite Labour standing. They should be able to hold Stoke despite us standing, right?

I'm happy for any cooperation that will stop UKIP, as for Richmond Park even some of the labour party membership voted libdem.

I know Farron doesn't rate Corbyn much but he(JC)shouldn't be allowed to fuck everything up if we have the ability to stop it.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm happy for any cooperation that will stop UKIP, as for Richmond Park even some of the labour party membership voted libdem.

I know Farron doesn't rate Corbyn much but he(JC)shouldn't be allowed to fuck everything up if we have the ability to stop it.

The issue is that we can't stand aside - we already put a lot of work into the seat, and we've raised a lot of funds from the membership. In addition, from our perspective JC has to be lumped in with Nuttall - we'd never work with either of them.

Nuttall's likely to have committed an offense under the ROTPA too - that will suppress his vote. He NEEDS Tories to flip to him to win. Tory voter don't flip to dodgy candidates.

 

[PJV3]

The issue is that we can't stand aside - we already put a lot of work into the seat, and we've raised a lot of funds from the membership. In addition, from our perspective JC has to be lumped in with Nuttall - we'd never work with either of them.

Nuttall's likely to have committed an offense under the ROTPA too - that will suppress his vote. He NEEDS Tories to flip to him to win. Tory voter don't flip to dodgy candidates.

I don't think based on the rumour that libs and greens are being asked to pull out, just tone down the campaign. Corbyn isn't going to be the MP for Stoke so it's a lot better than creating a base for the extreme right.

But, do what you gotta do. Hopefully that dodgy poll is way out from the truth and Labour can win it.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

A poll without published methodology is suspect. Leave.EU is a UKIP mouthpiece, too. So it seems dodgy to me.

What actually matters is canvas returns. If UKIP leak out indicators that their canvassing shows they'll win, then I'd put stock in that.

My hunch is that this poll's release is a deflection attempt by attempting to replace the news cycle and message on the doorstep. Instead of 'Nuttall is dodgy' they want 'Nuttall is going to/might score an upset'

EDIT: I decided to check up on the ROTPA 1983 with regards to Nutter faking his home address.

Making a false statement on a nomination form lead to one to two years in jail, a ban from standing for office for five years, and as a corrupt practice (if the police investigation finds that Nuttall, say, had no legal access to the house when he signed that nomination form) it is always in the CPS's view a matter of public interest to prosecute.

Fun!

 

[PJV3]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/04/diane-abbott-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-loyalty-vote-article-50


Lol, even Abbot might get the boot, I give up.

 

[Jezbollah]

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 47% (-)
CON: 27% (+3)
LAB: 15% (-1)
LDEM: 4% (-1)

(via Panelbase / 20 - 26 Jan)

 

[Maledict]

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 47% (-)
CON: 27% (+3)
LAB: 15% (-1)
LDEM: 4% (-1)

(via Panelbase / 20 - 26 Jan)

Have we ever seen such a rapid collapse in a party's level of support in an area? To go from owning almost all the Scottish seats to maybe one if they are lucky is unbelievable, and makes the lib dem collapse in 2015 look tiny in comparison.