Trump 19% Carson 12% Walker 12% Bush 11% Fiorina 10% Cruz 9% Huckabee 6% Rubio 6% Paul 3% Kasich 3%
The amazing thing is that Trump now has 3 times the vote share of his closest rival nationally. And there is no AV to save the bacon of Bush, unlike in the Labour party contest this is FPTP.
New Hampshire is ground zero for Bush, if he can beat Trump there he will likely still be nominee
So you are trying to imply that the SNP are like the Nazis then.
No
I was merely pointing out that while Nationalism in all its forms is a negative and destructive political ideology, as history has shown, people still vote for it if their sense of grievance is tickled in just the right place.
Shouldn't you be busy then campaigning against hard line Blood and Soil Nationalists like the Tories?
Nah, they just represent people afraid of marauding Africans and Scots who want to be in government.
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
I went to see Matt Forde interview Jim Murphy last month and Murphy said the tactics you describe were unbeatable at the GE
Yeah, I think I'd say that too if I had that calamity on my CV. It's the equivalent of Yes voters arguing that people wanted to vote for independence but were conned by the Vow.
Murphy has come rather late to the view that no one could have stopped the SNP, given that in January he claimed he was wiping the floor with them.
I can't resist one last airing of my GE2015 betting dairy - which documents how the MSM and many on this site were completely taken in by the "Cult of Jim Murphy":
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
Latest polls still have No narrowly ahead in any indyref2, if all those No voters vote tactically against the SNP at the constituency level to stop a 'neverendum' only a year or 2 after the last then anything could happen. If the SNP spend the whole campaign pushing for another independence referendum the whole narrative of the campaign will change
Trump 19% Carson 12% Walker 12% Bush 11% Fiorina 10% Cruz 9% Huckabee 6% Rubio 6% Paul 3% Kasich 3%
The amazing thing is that Trump now has 3 times the vote share of his closest rival nationally. And there is no AV to save the bacon of Bush, unlike in the Labour party contest this is FPTP.
New Hampshire is ground zero for Bush, if he can beat Trump there he will likely still be nominee
It will be difficult for Bush in N.H. The last poll there, before the debate that gave another gust of wind to Trump, was:
Trump 32% Kasich 15% Christie 9% Carson 8% Walker 8% Bush 7% Paul 6% Cruz 3% Rubio 3%
Bush was in 5th place. In fact in the entire country through all the statewide polls Bush is doing OK within striking distance of Trump only in Florida, but Florida doesn't vote this time until March 15th, 20 states would have already voted by then. Bush would get the stigma of being a loser by then.
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
SLAB will not be changed with Corbyn's election.
Kezia is an ABCer. MacIntosh is an ABCer when initially asked about it but has since started making pro-Corbyn noises to try and steal the contest.
But MacIntosh is already on record as a diehard ABCer.
SLAB is a rotten core now. an small active base of Blairites and a larger inactive rump of very old members who send their £20 a year but take no other interest outside their postal vote.
That's it. SLAB won't change if Corbyn wins and Labour won't do any better in Scotland. Armageddon is coming for all the Loyalists.
Trump 19% Carson 12% Walker 12% Bush 11% Fiorina 10% Cruz 9% Huckabee 6% Rubio 6% Paul 3% Kasich 3%
The amazing thing is that Trump now has 3 times the vote share of his closest rival nationally. And there is no AV to save the bacon of Bush, unlike in the Labour party contest this is FPTP.
If Trump can keep as many of the also rans in the contest as long as possible (and he might be able to do that with funding and promises of jobs if he wins) then he is assured the nomination.
I think Murphy is showing himself up with this revisionist the SNP were unbeatable bull***t - it was him and McT and McD who were briefing against Lamont:
" Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont is facing a growing leadership crisis amid claims that Jim Murphy is plotting her downfall this week. The party is bracing itself for more in-fighting and soul-searching following last week's referendum, and the Scottish Daily Mail revealed yesterday that former Scottish Secretary Mr Murphy is already being lined up as the next leader. "
It was Murphy and his Blairite buddies backed up by Chris Deerin, Alan C, Iain M etc - who hounded Lamont out of office - triggering the killer "Branch Office" quote.
I think you're right. 'Even the god like genius that is Murphy couldn't beat the Nats and the deranged Scottish electorate' is certainly the meme being pushed by the names you mention, and I'm guessing oor Jim will have some version of it in the CV he will inevitably be punting to the great and the good. He's probably even convinced himself ex post facto that was the case.
'Just read Harriet Harman's comments in The Spectator, that she didn't want Margaret Thatcher, "the witch" to cast her eyes on her baby'
What else do you expect from that revolting woman,she spends her entire political career fighting against grammar schools and then sends her son to one miles away from of her constituency.
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
Latest polls still have No narrowly ahead in any indyref2, if all those No voters vote tactically against the SNP at the constituency level to stop a 'neverendum' only a year or 2 after the last then anything could happen. If the SNP spend the whole campaign pushing for another independence referendum the whole narrative of the campaign will change
If people are polling for Yes, they will support (or at an absolutely minimum not avoid) voting SNP with an Indyref 2 in a timed commitment.
It's really that simple and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. 48% of the electorate will vote SNP with an Indyref commitment.
48% cannot be beaten tactically in a multi-party system.
"Donald Trump continued to defy the laws of political gravity on Monday as a Reuters/Ipsos poll found the real estate mogul holding onto a wide lead among Republicans in the U.S. presidential race despite an acerbic debate and a feud with a female television anchor that have bolstered charges of sexism.
Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate.
His closest rival, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, trails at 12 percent, down from 17 percent before the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8 percent in the online poll, conducted between the end of the debate and Sunday."
So now we have 3 post-debate polls all saying the same thing, Trump's lead either stable or increasing and all his rivals doing worse with the exception of Fiorina or Carson.
"Donald Trump continued to defy the laws of political gravity on Monday as a Reuters/Ipsos poll found the real estate mogul holding onto a wide lead among Republicans in the U.S. presidential race despite an acerbic debate and a feud with a female television anchor that have bolstered charges of sexism.
Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate.
His closest rival, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, trails at 12 percent, down from 17 percent before the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8 percent in the online poll, conducted between the end of the debate and Sunday."
So now we have 3 post-debate polls all saying the same thing, Trump's lead either stable or increasing and all his rivals doing worse with the exception of Fiorina or Carson.
There is a pertinent myth which appears to apply to sexism as much as it does racism yet seems to be believed by those who attempt to eliminate sexism and racism from public life.
The belief is that when sexist and racist comments and opinions are eliminated from commentary and no longer prevalent in public, the underlying attitudes no longer exist.
The problem is that it's just not true. There is a huge difference between being unwilling to state a sexist or racist comment in public and not holding a sexist or racist view (add homophobic, transphobic, any other -phobic or -ist you want).
Trump 19% Carson 12% Walker 12% Bush 11% Fiorina 10% Cruz 9% Huckabee 6% Rubio 6% Paul 3% Kasich 3%
The amazing thing is that Trump now has 3 times the vote share of his closest rival nationally. And there is no AV to save the bacon of Bush, unlike in the Labour party contest this is FPTP.
New Hampshire is ground zero for Bush, if he can beat Trump there he will likely still be nominee
It will be difficult for Bush in N.H. The last poll there, before the debate that gave another gust of wind to Trump, was:
Trump 32% Kasich 15% Christie 9% Carson 8% Walker 8% Bush 7% Paul 6% Cruz 3% Rubio 3%
Bush was in 5th place. In fact in the entire country through all the statewide polls Bush is doing OK within striking distance of Trump only in Florida, but Florida doesn't vote this time until March 15th, 20 states would have already voted by then. Bush would get the stigma of being a loser by then.
Bush has been leading in NH until recently though, which he was not in Iowa, his collapse in NH is just a symptom of his collapse nationally. I agree waiting until Florida for a win is a terrible strategy, as Rudy Giuliani proved beyond doubt in 2008
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
SLAB will not be changed with Corbyn's election.
Kezia is an ABCer. MacIntosh is an ABCer when initially asked about it but has since started making pro-Corbyn noises to try and steal the contest.
But MacIntosh is already on record as a diehard ABCer.
SLAB is a rotten core now. an small active base of Blairites and a larger inactive rump of very old members who send their £20 a year but take no other interest outside their postal vote.
That's it. SLAB won't change if Corbyn wins and Labour won't do any better in Scotland. Armageddon is coming for all the Loyalists.
Corbyn would be left of the SNP, that would instantly make them the rebel party to the establishment SNP, the complete reverse of the last few years. The 'loyalists' still have a narrow lead in indyref 2 polls
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
That already exists at the constituency level. People tended to vote in line with their views on independence in May, but the No lead isn't big enough for tactical voting to have much effect.
If the SNP don't include indyref2 in their manifesto, it won't be because they're afraid it'll lose them the election - unless there's a huge scandal they'll win it easily - but because of the prospect of a second No vote.
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
Latest polls still have No narrowly ahead in any indyref2, if all those No voters vote tactically against the SNP at the constituency level to stop a 'neverendum' only a year or 2 after the last then anything could happen. If the SNP spend the whole campaign pushing for another independence referendum the whole narrative of the campaign will change
If people are polling for Yes, they will support (or at an absolutely minimum not avoid) voting SNP with an Indyref 2 in a timed commitment.
It's really that simple and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. 48% of the electorate will vote SNP with an Indyref commitment.
48% cannot be beaten tactically in a multi-party system.
Yes they can if no voters all vote tactically for the main SNP alternative in each seat after a campaign dominated by the SNP pushing for indyref 2 and then vote for another unionist party on the list
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
SLAB will not be changed with Corbyn's election.
Kezia is an ABCer. MacIntosh is an ABCer when initially asked about it but has since started making pro-Corbyn noises to try and steal the contest.
But MacIntosh is already on record as a diehard ABCer.
SLAB is a rotten core now. an small active base of Blairites and a larger inactive rump of very old members who send their £20 a year but take no other interest outside their postal vote.
That's it. SLAB won't change if Corbyn wins and Labour won't do any better in Scotland. Armageddon is coming for all the Loyalists.
Corbyn would be left of the SNP, that would instantly make them the rebel party to the establishment SNP, the complete reverse of the last few years. The 'loyalists' still have a narrow lead in indyref 2 polls
People vote for the SNP for three main reasons.
1. They want Scottish Independence 2. They want competent government 3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
Latest polls still have No narrowly ahead in any indyref2, if all those No voters vote tactically against the SNP at the constituency level to stop a 'neverendum' only a year or 2 after the last then anything could happen. If the SNP spend the whole campaign pushing for another independence referendum the whole narrative of the campaign will change
If people are polling for Yes, they will support (or at an absolutely minimum not avoid) voting SNP with an Indyref 2 in a timed commitment.
It's really that simple and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. 48% of the electorate will vote SNP with an Indyref commitment.
48% cannot be beaten tactically in a multi-party system.
Yes they can if no voters all vote tactically for the main SNP alternative in each seat after a campaign dominated by the SNP pushing for indyref 2 and then vote for another unionist party on the list
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
"Donald Trump continued to defy the laws of political gravity on Monday as a Reuters/Ipsos poll found the real estate mogul holding onto a wide lead among Republicans in the U.S. presidential race despite an acerbic debate and a feud with a female television anchor that have bolstered charges of sexism.
Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate.
His closest rival, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, trails at 12 percent, down from 17 percent before the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8 percent in the online poll, conducted between the end of the debate and Sunday."
So now we have 3 post-debate polls all saying the same thing, Trump's lead either stable or increasing and all his rivals doing worse with the exception of Fiorina or Carson.
There is a pertinent myth which appears to apply to sexism as much as it does racism yet seems to be believed by those who attempt to eliminate sexism and racism from public life.
The belief is that when sexist and racist comments and opinions are eliminated from commentary and no longer prevalent in public, the underlying attitudes no longer exist.
The problem is that it's just not true. There is a huge difference between being unwilling to state a sexist or racist comment in public and not holding a sexist or racist view (add homophobic, transphobic, any other -phobic or -ist you want).
Trump's success has nothing to do with that. It's Television, Trump is a TV performer of the highest caliber.
Like I said, he's the american Berslusconi, if he did it in Italy so can Trump in America, that's why I got on the Trump bandwagon when his odds were 100/1 back in May. Also I got the correct feeling that as long as Trump insults people that republican voters hate he'll be OK if not doing better in the polls.
The whole "charisma" of Trump is that he's able to insult let's say your boss whom you hate , the difference is that although you may want to say expletives to your boss you probably can't afford to, but Trump can so people are projecting their hate towards their superiors through Trump. It's like a soap opera.
"Donald Trump continued to defy the laws of political gravity on Monday as a Reuters/Ipsos poll found the real estate mogul holding onto a wide lead among Republicans in the U.S. presidential race despite an acerbic debate and a feud with a female television anchor that have bolstered charges of sexism.
Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate.
His closest rival, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, trails at 12 percent, down from 17 percent before the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8 percent in the online poll, conducted between the end of the debate and Sunday."
So now we have 3 post-debate polls all saying the same thing, Trump's lead either stable or increasing and all his rivals doing worse with the exception of Fiorina or Carson.
There is a pertinent myth which appears to apply to sexism as much as it does racism yet seems to be believed by those who attempt to eliminate sexism and racism from public life.
The belief is that when sexist and racist comments and opinions are eliminated from commentary and no longer prevalent in public, the underlying attitudes no longer exist.
The problem is that it's just not true. There is a huge difference between being unwilling to state a sexist or racist comment in public and not holding a sexist or racist view (add homophobic, transphobic, any other -phobic or -ist you want).
Trump's success has nothing to do with that. It's Television, Trump is a TV performer of the highest caliber.
Like I said, he's the american Berslusconi, if he did it in Italy so can Trump in America, that's why I got on the Trump bandwagon when his odds were 100/1 back in May. Also I got the correct feeling that as long as Trump insults people that republican voters hate he'll be OK if not doing better in the polls.
The whole "charisma" of Trump is that he's able to insult let's say your boss whom you hate , the difference is that although you may want to say expletives to your boss you probably can't afford to, but Trump can so people are projecting their hate towards their superiors through Trump. It's like a soap opera.
I feel against my nature I must make complaint about Ladbrokes.I fell into one of their shops today whilst waiting for Mrs Volcano's various medicaments at the Co-op Pharmacy-sadly now owned by venture capitalists Bestway-and requested an "Any-To-Come " bet.This was refused was 3 staff despite my repeated explanation of the definition of the bet,the oldest of the 3 and was about 25 said she would phone up and ask and she got the same answer.I asked her to please find an old geezer at Ladbrokes who knew what I was on about but there weren't any. Denied an "Any-To-Come" bet from the biggest bookmaker in the country,how low has the world sunk?
Great piece on the distinct possibility of the EU referendum being lost:
One final unknown are the undecided — the people who are yet to make up their minds. In the polls, the Inners typically have around a six-point lead. But this is easily eclipsed by the 18 per cent of people who don’t know how they will vote. If these voters shift behind staying in, then it will be a landslide, but if they break for Brexit then suddenly we will find ourselves out of the EU. And if we look at these undecideds more closely we find something really interesting — they actually look more like the Outers than Inners. They are less likely to have a degree, are more likely to feel that immigration is bad for the economy, and most feel dissatisfied with the EU. Many headlines do not take these voters into account but it is by no means certain that they will flock to staying in. The prospect of Brexit looks unlikely but the debate is far from a done deal.
This is the sort of report which SLAB should be generating, instead of just recycling crappy tweets and chasing Cybernat trolls !!
Anecdata alert: my recent experience of the Scottish health service at GP level was excellent - many times better than the GP service in my home area. The experience of the A&E service was also good, even if the doctor did not seem to know left from right ...
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
That already exists at the constituency level. People tended to vote in line with their views on independence in May, but the No lead isn't big enough for tactical voting to have much effect.
If the SNP don't include indyref2 in their manifesto, it won't be because they're afraid it'll lose them the election - unless there's a huge scandal they'll win it easily - but because of the prospect of a second No vote.
In May people were voting SNP to stand up for Scotland at Westminster, if Holyrood becomes an election about independence then tactical voting will rise accordingly
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
SLAB will not be changed with Corbyn's election.
Kezia is an ABCer. MacIntosh is an ABCer when initially asked about it but has since started making pro-Corbyn noises to try and steal the contest.
But MacIntosh is already on record as a diehard ABCer.
SLAB is a rotten core now. an small active base of Blairites and a larger inactive rump of very old members who send their £20 a year but take no other interest outside their postal vote.
That's it. SLAB won't change if Corbyn wins and Labour won't do any better in Scotland. Armageddon is coming for all the Loyalists.
Corbyn would be left of the SNP, that would instantly make them the rebel party to the establishment SNP, the complete reverse of the last few years. The 'loyalists' still have a narrow lead in indyref 2 polls
People vote for the SNP for three main reasons.
1. They want Scottish Independence 2. They want competent government 3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
In much of Scotland yes, especially the Highlands for 1 and the lowlands for 2 and 3, but in the Central Belt many voted SNP as they were left of Labour, that argument goes if they become right of Corbyn Labour. To become Labour leader in the first place Corbyn will, of course, have had to win Labour activists
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
This ridiculous straw clutching appears completely without foundation or evidence.
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
Latest polls still have No narrowly ahead in any indyref2, if all those No voters vote tactically against the SNP at the constituency level to stop a 'neverendum' only a year or 2 after the last then anything could happen. If the SNP spend the whole campaign pushing for another independence referendum the whole narrative of the campaign will change
If people are polling for Yes, they will support (or at an absolutely minimum not avoid) voting SNP with an Indyref 2 in a timed commitment.
It's really that simple and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. 48% of the electorate will vote SNP with an Indyref commitment.
48% cannot be beaten tactically in a multi-party system.
Yes they can if no voters all vote tactically for the main SNP alternative in each seat after a campaign dominated by the SNP pushing for indyref 2 and then vote for another unionist party on the list
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
Of course you can, if your opponent gets 50% + at the constituency level and you also fail to win enough list seats you may come first but lack a majority under the AMS system
Presumably, should Burnham become Labour leaders, all those Labour posters on here criticising Cameron's use of his family will say the same thing about their own side?
1. They want Scottish Independence 2. They want competent government 3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
In much of Scotland yes, especially the Highlands for 1 and the lowlands for 2 and 3, but in the Central Belt many voted SNP as they were left of Labour, that argument goes if they become right of Corbyn Labour. To become Labour leader in the first place Corbyn will, of course, have had to win Labour activists
This really demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about voter behaviour.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
Of course you can, if your opponent gets 50% + at the constituency level and you also fail to win enough list seats you may come first but lack a majority under the AMS system
Again, complete naivety and ignorance.
In three and four party systems, tactical voting WILL NOT GIVE YOU 50%+ when a party is already on 48%. The 48% wins because tactical voting is not strong enough or complete enough to give the opposition the required numbers.
Presumably, should Burnham become Labour leaders, all those Labour posters on here criticising Cameron's use of his family will say the same thing about their own side?
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
That already exists at the constituency level. People tended to vote in line with their views on independence in May, but the No lead isn't big enough for tactical voting to have much effect.
If the SNP don't include indyref2 in their manifesto, it won't be because they're afraid it'll lose them the election - unless there's a huge scandal they'll win it easily - but because of the prospect of a second No vote.
In May people were voting SNP to stand up for Scotland at Westminster, if Holyrood becomes an election about independence then tactical voting will rise accordingly
It wouldn't be a vote about independence. It'd be a vote about another referendum, which most No voters believe (correctly, as things stand) they'd win.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
1. They want Scottish Independence 2. They want competent government 3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
In much of Scotland yes, especially the Highlands for 1 and the lowlands for 2 and 3, but in the Central Belt many voted SNP as they were left of Labour, that argument goes if they become right of Corbyn Labour. To become Labour leader in the first place Corbyn will, of course, have had to win Labour activists
This really demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about voter behaviour.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
They vote SNP because they are the 'best choice', what a load of waffle. In the Central Belt they voted SNP as they were anti austerity and leftwing compared to 'New Labour' SLAB. If SLAB becomes Old Labour again then that argument ceases to apply
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
Of course you can, if your opponent gets 50% + at the constituency level and you also fail to win enough list seats you may come first but lack a majority under the AMS system
Again, complete naivety and ignorance.
In three and four party systems, tactical voting WILL NOT GIVE YOU 50%+ when a party is already on 48%. The 48% wins because tactical voting is not strong enough or complete enough to give the opposition the required numbers.
In Quebec the Liberals and PQ took over 95%+ of the vote between them in some seats at provincial elections, if indyref2 becomes the be all and end all of the campaign then 48% may not be enough to win some seats
This really demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about voter behaviour.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
They vote SNP because they are the 'best choice', what a load of waffle. In the Central Belt they voted SNP as they were anti austerity and leftwing compared to 'New Labour' SLAB. If SLAB becomes Old Labour again then that argument ceases to apply
This is not why people vote.
People are not "right" or "left" generally speaking. They don't vote because they are "right" or "left".
The reason people vote, generally speaking, fall into four categories.
1. Tradition (it's what my family/peer group/community always voted) 2. Habit (it's what I always voted (outwith Tradition) 3. Specific over-riding Principle (this could include right/left concepts like "small government" or "welfare state" but in Scotland is most likely to mean Constitutional Status) 4. Expected personal outcome (usually financial)
None of these are offered by "outflanking the SNP to the left". It doesn't work that way outside the fervent imagination of political journalists. And generally people don't consider ANY change unless they are feeling negative towards the party they voted for last time.
None of these factors are going to change with Corbyn. Labour have a generational time scale to recover any ground in Scotland. Unless the SNP truly screw up, say by raising taxes or failing abysmally with a public service (and that means ACTUAL abysmal not political commentary abysmal) they aren't going to go backwards.
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
Of course you can, if your opponent gets 50% + at the constituency level and you also fail to win enough list seats you may come first but lack a majority under the AMS system
Again, complete naivety and ignorance.
In three and four party systems, tactical voting WILL NOT GIVE YOU 50%+ when a party is already on 48%. The 48% wins because tactical voting is not strong enough or complete enough to give the opposition the required numbers.
In Quebec the Liberals and PQ took over 95%+ of the vote between them in some seats at provincial elections, if indyref2 becomes the be all and end all of the campaign then 48% may not be enough to win some seats
Quebec in the 1990s was a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. The Liberals and the PQ were the only real choice while the Tories were in the middle of a two decade period of self-destruction.
Scotland is not a two party system, it is a 4.5 party system (the Lib Dems count as a half). In a 4.5 party system 40% is dominant and the SNP are at 62%
If an election were held tomorrow the SNP would certainly increase their majority and win a landslide. However, the election is just under a year away and a key factor will be whether the SNP includes indyref2 in its manifesto. If it does then that could well lead to tactical voting by the unionist parties on the constituency vote. If it does not, then that will infuriate many nationalist diehards who could stay at home.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader and Macintosh leader of SLAB that would also provide a much tougher challenge for the SNP than they presently face
Well the issue with the SNP is not that they do a good job, it's that there is no other political party in scotland for people to vote for. Labour, the Tories and the LD have dissolved as political entities, they are ex-parties.
Charles Kennedy had a good idea of creating a new left wing political party in scotland after the GE, sadly he died before he had a chance.
If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership then SLAB will effectively be a new party. Also, don't forget almost 50% voted for Labour, the Tories and the LDs in May, if the SNP push for indyref2 tactical voting by unionist voters next year at the constituency level is inevitable
That already exists at the constituency level. People tended to vote in line with their views on independence in May, but the No lead isn't big enough for tactical voting to have much effect.
If the SNP don't include indyref2 in their manifesto, it won't be because they're afraid it'll lose them the election - unless there's a huge scandal they'll win it easily - but because of the prospect of a second No vote.
In May people were voting SNP to stand up for Scotland at Westminster, if Holyrood becomes an election about independence then tactical voting will rise accordingly
It wouldn't be a vote about independence. It'd be a vote about another referendum, which most No voters believe (correctly, as things stand) they'd win.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
There is a difference between an issue which had not yet been tested producing an emotionally draining election campaign smothering all other issues in Scotland for years which No campaigners managed to win after an exhausting campaign and then going through EXACTLY the same process again just a year or 2 afterwards, No voters will not want that and will vote accordingly
This really demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about voter behaviour.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
They vote SNP because they are the 'best choice', what a load of waffle. In the Central Belt they voted SNP as they were anti austerity and leftwing compared to 'New Labour' SLAB. If SLAB becomes Old Labour again then that argument ceases to apply
This is not why people vote.
People are not "right" or "left" generally speaking. They don't vote because they are "right" or "left".
The reason people vote, generally speaking, fall into four categories.
1. Tradition (it's what my family/peer group/community always voted) 2. Habit (it's what I always voted (outwith Tradition) 3. Specific over-riding Principle (this could include right/left concepts like "small government" or "welfare state" but in Scotland is most likely to mean Constitutional Status) 4. Expected personal outcome (usually financial)
None of these are offered by "outflanking the SNP to the left". It doesn't work that way outside the fervent imagination of political journalists. And generally people don't consider ANY change unless they are feeling negative towards the party they voted for last time.
None of these factors are going to change with Corbyn. Labour have a generational time scale to recover any ground in Scotland. Unless the SNP truly screw up, say by raising taxes or failing abysmally with a public service (and that means ACTUAL abysmal not political commentary abysmal) they aren't going to go backwards.
By tradition, habit, overriding Principle (ie unionists, public sector workers, working class voters, welfare claimants) voters in the Central Belt voted Old Labour. They then switched to the SNP when they became the new Old Labour while the SLAB party were seen as New Labour 'Red Tories.' Under Corbyn SLAB would return to Old Labour again
In a three of four party system, you CANNOT lose if you get 48%. Period.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
Of course you can, if your opponent gets 50% + at the constituency level and you also fail to win enough list seats you may come first but lack a majority under the AMS system
Again, complete naivety and ignorance.
In three and four party systems, tactical voting WILL NOT GIVE YOU 50%+ when a party is already on 48%. The 48% wins because tactical voting is not strong enough or complete enough to give the opposition the required numbers.
In Quebec the Liberals and PQ took over 95%+ of the vote between them in some seats at provincial elections, if indyref2 becomes the be all and end all of the campaign then 48% may not be enough to win some seats
Quebec in the 1990s was a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. The Liberals and the PQ were the only real choice while the Tories were in the middle of a two decade period of self-destruction.
Scotland is not a two party system, it is a 4.5 party system (the Lib Dems count as a half). In a 4.5 party system 40% is dominant and the SNP are at 62%
No, the Union Nationale was still a force in the run-up to the 1981 election for example and the Liberals and PQ still got over 95% of the vote combined. From 1994 the AD also rose up as an alternative
It wouldn't be a vote about independence. It'd be a vote about another referendum, which most No voters believe (correctly, as things stand) they'd win.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
There is a difference between an issue which had not yet been tested producing an emotionally draining election campaign smothering all other issues in Scotland for years which No campaigners managed to win after an exhausting campaign and then going through EXACTLY the same process again just a year or 2 afterwards, No voters will not want that and will vote accordingly
And those No Voters will have three choices for their X and no reliable way of knowing which is the best choice. Meanwhile those three parties will be telling the voters that they are the best choice and manufacturing reasons for this regardless of previous results in the constituency, causing even more confusion amongst these Loyalists.
And all the time, the core Loyalist vote is dying and the replacement generations are much, much more disposed towards the SNP and Independence which is consistently polling higher than in September and by May next year is likely to be a solid 50:50 split.
You also miss one of the biggest tactical considerations. All those commentators and journalists who for some unspecified, unsubstantiated and frankly nonsense reason believe a second No vote would stop any further referendum.
That will give a strong incentive for any duped Loyalist diehard to vote SNP to get a second referendum that the same media tell them No would win.
Ben Carson looks like quite good value at 33/1 and has been increasing in the polls. Not quite sure if he represents good value yet. However, he appears to be right wing enough by Republican standards.
Quebec in the 1990s was a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. The Liberals and the PQ were the only real choice while the Tories were in the middle of a two decade period of self-destruction.
Scotland is not a two party system, it is a 4.5 party system (the Lib Dems count as a half). In a 4.5 party system 40% is dominant and the SNP are at 62%
No, the Union Nationale was still a force in the run-up to the 1981 election for example and the Liberals and PQ still got over 95% of the vote combined. From 1994 the AD also rose up as an alternative
Let's see if I have this right. The SNP have reached 62% of the vote and have positive ratings on education, health and the economy. This is after more than EIGHT years in Government!
I don't know what's holding his price up. Corbyn should be odds-on now IMHO
There's an expectation among punters that Labour surely won't be that bat shit crazy. Mind you he is up against Andy Burnham who is more tit than titan
It wouldn't be a vote about independence. It'd be a vote about another referendum, which most No voters believe (correctly, as things stand) they'd win.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
There is a difference between an issue which had not yet been tested producing an emotionally draining election campaign smothering all other issues in Scotland for years which No campaigners managed to win after an exhausting campaign and then going through EXACTLY the same process again just a year or 2 afterwards, No voters will not want that and will vote accordingly
And those No Voters will have three choices for their X and no reliable way of knowing which is the best choice. Meanwhile those three parties will be telling the voters that they are the best choice and manufacturing reasons for this regardless of previous results in the constituency, causing even more confusion amongst these Loyalists.
And all the time, the core Loyalist vote is dying and the replacement generations are much, much more disposed towards the SNP and Independence which is consistently polling higher than in September and by May next year is likely to be a solid 50:50 split.
You also miss one of the biggest tactical considerations. All those commentators and journalists who for some unspecified, unsubstantiated and frankly nonsense reason believe a second No vote would stop any further referendum.
That will give a strong incentive for any duped Loyalist diehard to vote SNP to get a second referendum that the same media tell them No would win.
It is not that difficult, the runner-up at the last Holyrood elections will simply produce leaflets saying only the 'Tories/Labour/LDs' can beat the SNP here with a few bar charts and the unionists will shift to them. Yes is polling no higher now than in September when you consider that the polls underestimated No's lead. Bear in mind too that 18-24 year olds voted No too as did the over 40s, so the idea that only pensioners voted No is a fallacy.
If there was a second NO vote independence would be dead for decades, perhaps for good. Quebec is still in Canada 20 years after voting No by little more than 1% in 1995, its second referendum
Loyalists voted in the referendum because they had to, not because they wanted to, they have no desire to go through the whole thing again even with that incentive there is still the risk
Those that watched Monday night football will have noticed that Corbynite fellow traveller James McLean got booed so badly by both sets of supporters that he was hooked at half time.
Those that watched Monday night football will have noticed that Corbynite fellow traveller James McLean got booed so badly by both sets of supporters that he was hooked at half time.
And those No Voters will have three choices for their X and no reliable way of knowing which is the best choice. Meanwhile those three parties will be telling the voters that they are the best choice and manufacturing reasons for this regardless of previous results in the constituency, causing even more confusion amongst these Loyalists.
And all the time, the core Loyalist vote is dying and the replacement generations are much, much more disposed towards the SNP and Independence which is consistently polling higher than in September and by May next year is likely to be a solid 50:50 split.
You also miss one of the biggest tactical considerations. All those commentators and journalists who for some unspecified, unsubstantiated and frankly nonsense reason believe a second No vote would stop any further referendum.
That will give a strong incentive for any duped Loyalist diehard to vote SNP to get a second referendum that the same media tell them No would win.
It is not that difficult, the runner-up at the last Holyrood elections will simply produce leaflets saying only the 'Tories/Labour/LDs' can beat the SNP here with a few bar charts and the unionists will shift to them. Yes is polling no higher now than in September when you consider that the polls underestimated No's lead. Bear in mind too that 18-24 year olds voted No too as did the over 40s, so the idea that only pensioners voted No is a fallacy.
If there was a second NO vote independence would be dead for decades, perhaps for good. Quebec is still in Canada 20 years after voting No by little more than 1% in 1995, its second referendum
Loyalists voted in the referendum because they had to, not because they wanted to, they have no desire to go through the whole thing again even with that incentive there is still the risk
And while the Holyrood runner up puts out one leaflet the other two will show similar leaflets based on Westminster 2015 or comfort polling or just made up nonsense, it's all legal no matter how outrageous the claim. And remember, for the tactical vote to work, the Loyalists need virtually EVERY vote, even the people who bin the leaflets without looking or don't pay any attention to the campaign. Not going to happen.
18 to 24s voted YES and your reliance on a single rogue poll is an embarrassment to your argument.
Absolutely nothing stops a third or fourth Independence Referendum if required. Circumstances chance and a further vote can always be justified.
The reason Quebec hasn't had a third is because the PQ no longer have the necessary control of the province. They bottled it in 2000 and haven't held power on their own since then.
Quebec is the lesson to learn - waiting for a second or third vote is the worst possible choice.
I don't know what's holding his price up. Corbyn should be odds-on now IMHO
There's an expectation among punters that Labour surely won't be that bat shit crazy. Mind you he is up against Andy Burnham who is more tit than titan
This is an internal battle, and most punters are outsiders in this, that is why Liz Kendall was the favourite even though it was clear that no one would vote for her from early on.
Also a 2016 update (there is a lot of news coming out today from america, after all it's Monday), Fox News has surrendered to Trump:
"According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump’s favor. “In the beginning, virtually 100-percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly,” one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation told me. “Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.” "
"In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trumpless Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flack. Both The Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines. "
This was a big personal victory for Trump. Many said that Fox News would crush him and in the space of a weekend they actually surrendered to him.
I don't know what's holding his price up. Corbyn should be odds-on now IMHO
There's an expectation among punters that Labour surely won't be that bat shit crazy. Mind you he is up against Andy Burnham who is more tit than titan
Quebec in the 1990s was a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. The Liberals and the PQ were the only real choice while the Tories were in the middle of a two decade period of self-destruction.
Scotland is not a two party system, it is a 4.5 party system (the Lib Dems count as a half). In a 4.5 party system 40% is dominant and the SNP are at 62%
No, the Union Nationale was still a force in the run-up to the 1981 election for example and the Liberals and PQ still got over 95% of the vote combined. From 1994 the AD also rose up as an alternative
I don't know what's holding his price up. Corbyn should be odds-on now IMHO
There's an expectation among punters that Labour surely won't be that bat shit crazy. Mind you he is up against Andy Burnham who is more tit than titan
This is an internal battle, and most punters are outsiders in this, that is why Liz Kendall was the favourite even though it was clear that no one would vote for her from early on.
Also a 2016 update (there is a lot of news coming out today from america, after all it's Monday), Fox News has surrendered to Trump:
"According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump’s favor. “In the beginning, virtually 100-percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly,” one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation told me. “Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.” "
"In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trumpless Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flack. Both The Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines. "
This was a big personal victory for Trump. Many said that Fox News would crush him and in the space of a weekend they actually surrendered to him.
In 2012 betting on the GOP nomination, it was profitable, to lay the loon, as the GOP has a history of choosing, relatively speaking, the most centrist candidate.
I wonder if that strategy will be profitable in 2016?
1. They want Scottish Independence 2. They want competent government 3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
In much of Scotland yes, especially the Highlands for 1 and the lowlands for 2 and 3, but in the Central Belt many voted SNP as they were left of Labour, that argument goes if they become right of Corbyn Labour. To become Labour leader in the first place Corbyn will, of course, have had to win Labour activists
This really demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about voter behaviour.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
I certainly agree that when the traditional voting link snaps it can be for good. It is just like buying a newspaper, or your favourite washing powder.
You only need to try the alternative a few times for it to stick. Once it usually not enough, unless you are particularly impressed by what you find.
That's why a political party has to cater to its heartland. People can fall out of habit of voting for you. That has always been LibDems vehicle for success. They create new patterns, often just as strong as the ones that replace them. But ultimately, as we have seen they can also be broken.
You can't blame him, I mean he'd be facing Burnham or Corbyn, the Hardy to Ed's Laurel
David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe
Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”
Those that watched Monday night football will have noticed that Corbynite fellow traveller James McLean got booed so badly by both sets of supporters that he was hooked at half time.
Popular my arsenal.
Near five figure swing on whether Yaya or Silva scored that first goal. I fear the worst
It is not that difficult, the runner-up at the last Holyrood elections will simply produce leaflets saying only the 'Tories/Labour/LDs' can beat the SNP here with a few bar charts and the unionists will shift to them. Yes is polling no higher now than in September when you consider that the polls underestimated No's lead. Bear in mind too that 18-24 year olds voted No too as did the over 40s, so the idea that only pensioners voted No is a fallacy.
If there was a second NO vote independence would be dead for decades, perhaps for good. Quebec is still in Canada 20 years after voting No by little more than 1% in 1995, its second referendum
Loyalists voted in the referendum because they had to, not because they wanted to, they have no desire to go through the whole thing again even with that incentive there is still the risk
And while the Holyrood runner up puts out one leaflet the other two will show similar leaflets based on Westminster 2015 or comfort polling or just made up nonsense, it's all legal no matter how outrageous the claim. And remember, for the tactical vote to work, the Loyalists need virtually EVERY vote, even the people who bin the leaflets without looking or don't pay any attention to the campaign. Not going to happen.
18 to 24s voted YES and your reliance on a single rogue poll is an embarrassment to your argument.
Absolutely nothing stops a third or fourth Independence Referendum if required. Circumstances chance and a further vote can always be justified.
The reason Quebec hasn't had a third is because the PQ no longer have the necessary control of the province. They bottled it in 2000 and haven't held power on their own since then.
Quebec is the lesson to learn - waiting for a second or third vote is the worst possible choice.
If you cannot win a rematch you never win at all, end of. Otherwise on your argument there is nothing to stop a vote to rejoin the union just a few years after an independence vote.
The PQ won a majority in the 1998 Quebec provincial elections and won most seats in the 2012 elections and formed a minority government
Those that watched Monday night football will have noticed that Corbynite fellow traveller James McLean got booed so badly by both sets of supporters that he was hooked at half time.
Popular my arsenal.
It's worth nothing that he publicly supported pIRA and disrespected British Soldiers in November 2014 and continued playing with some but not overwhelming protest.
Only when he disrespects Liz Windsor does the English public really turn on him.
Such a servile nation, demonstrating an utterly repugnant culture of serfdom.
It wouldn't be a vote about independence. It'd be a vote about another referendum, which most No voters believe (correctly, as things stand) they'd win.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
There is a difference between an issue which had not yet been tested producing an emotionally draining election campaign smothering all other issues in Scotland for years which No campaigners managed to win after an exhausting campaign and then going through EXACTLY the same process again just a year or 2 afterwards, No voters will not want that and will vote accordingly
And those No Voters will have three choices for their X and no reliable way of knowing which is the best choice. Meanwhile those three parties will be telling the voters that they are the best choice and manufacturing reasons for this regardless of previous results in the constituency, causing even more confusion amongst these Loyalists.
And all the time, the core Loyalist vote is dying and the replacement generations are much, much more disposed towards the SNP and Independence which is consistently polling higher than in September and by May next year is likely to be a solid 50:50 split.
You also miss one of the biggest tactical considerations. All those commentators and journalists who for some unspecified, unsubstantiated and frankly nonsense reason believe a second No vote would stop any further referendum.
That will give a strong incentive for any duped Loyalist diehard to vote SNP to get a second referendum that the same media tell them No would win.
With Brent Crude at the dizzy heights it is currently, No would win an even larger margin currently; as they will if there is clamour for another referendum in 2075.
You can't blame him, I mean he'd be facing Burnham or Corbyn, the Hardy to Ed's Laurel
David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe
Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”
@SamCoatesTimes: In a runoff against Burnham, Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%. If Cooper makes it to the final round, Corbyn wins by 62% to 38% - Times/YouGov poll
You can't blame him, I mean he'd be facing Burnham or Corbyn, the Hardy to Ed's Laurel
David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe
Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”
Corbyn maybe, Burnham polls best of the contendors, though I think Cameron could still beat him, Osborne perhaps not, though he will fancy his chances against Corbyn
If you cannot win a rematch you never win at all, end of. Otherwise on your argument there is nothing to stop a vote to rejoin the union just a few years after an independence vote.
The PQ won a majority in the 1998 Quebec provincial elections and won most seats in the 2012 elections and formed a minority government
Relying on one rogue poll is stupid logic on your part. Ashcroft put 18-24s on 75% Yes and all the other evidence of voting behaviour before and since shows very strong support for the SNP and/or Independence in that age group.
As I said, the PQ bottled it in 2000 and have never had the necessary majority since 2003. That's their fault, entirely. There is nothing and no law which states that you only get two votes for Independence, just the opposite, the UK Constitutional position has been established by precedent (as it usually is) - a majority for a manifesto with a commitment to a referendum requires Westminster to devolve the power to hold that referendum for the duration of that devolved government.
@SamCoatesTimes: In a runoff against Burnham, Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%. If Cooper makes it to the final round, Corbyn wins by 62% to 38% - Times/YouGov poll
So it really is now Burnham or bust for those trying to stop Corbyn!!
I don't know what's holding his price up. Corbyn should be odds-on now IMHO
There's an expectation among punters that Labour surely won't be that bat shit crazy. Mind you he is up against Andy Burnham who is more tit than titan
This is an internal battle, and most punters are outsiders in this, that is why Liz Kendall was the favourite even though it was clear that no one would vote for her from early on.
Also a 2016 update (there is a lot of news coming out today from america, after all it's Monday), Fox News has surrendered to Trump:
This was a big personal victory for Trump. Many said that Fox News would crush him and in the space of a weekend they actually surrendered to him.
In 2012 betting on the GOP nomination, it was profitable, to lay the loon, as the GOP has a history of choosing, relatively speaking, the most centrist candidate.
I wonder if that strategy will be profitable in 2016?
I think it was because the "loons" always didn't have the money, the "loons" almost always make it in the GOP but never win it because of lack of money. Imagine Pat Buchanan with 10 billion dollars:
""There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."
"The agenda Bill and Hillary would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units — that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."
If you cannot win a rematch you never win at all, end of. Otherwise on your argument there is nothing to stop a vote to rejoin the union just a few years after an independence vote.
The PQ won a majority in the 1998 Quebec provincial elections and won most seats in the 2012 elections and formed a minority government
Relying on one rogue poll is stupid logic on your part. Ashcroft put 18-24s on 75% Yes and all the other evidence of voting behaviour before and since shows very strong support for the SNP and/or Independence in that age group.
As I said, the PQ bottled it in 2000 and have never had the necessary majority since 2003. That's their fault, entirely. There is nothing and no law which states that you only get two votes for Independence, just the opposite, the UK Constitutional position has been established by precedent (as it usually is) - a majority for a manifesto with a commitment to a referendum requires Westminster to devolve the power to hold that referendum for the duration of that devolved government.
Rubbish, the precedent set was that Westminster had the final say on whether to allow a referendum or not.
@SamCoatesTimes: In a runoff against Burnham, Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%. If Cooper makes it to the final round, Corbyn wins by 62% to 38% - Times/YouGov poll
Well it's over, congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn, he really was the only one of the 4 who actually put an effort in it, you may disagree with his policies or not but he is only one actually trying to win this.
If you cannot win a rematch you never win at all, end of. Otherwise on your argument there is nothing to stop a vote to rejoin the union just a few years after an independence vote.
The PQ won a majority in the 1998 Quebec provincial elections and won most seats in the 2012 elections and formed a minority government
Relying on one rogue poll is stupid logic on your part. Ashcroft put 18-24s on 75% Yes and all the other evidence of voting behaviour before and since shows very strong support for the SNP and/or Independence in that age group.
As I said, the PQ bottled it in 2000 and have never had the necessary majority since 2003. That's their fault, entirely. There is nothing and no law which states that you only get two votes for Independence, just the opposite, the UK Constitutional position has been established by precedent (as it usually is) - a majority for a manifesto with a commitment to a referendum requires Westminster to devolve the power to hold that referendum for the duration of that devolved government.
Part of the reason PQ have not won many majority governments after there second independence referendum is obviously because Quebec voters do not want another vote. on your argument as I said you could also have loyalists pushing for a referendum to rejoin the UK as soon as any vote for independence passes
So Labour will have a Corbyn/Watson team. So far by the evidence of campaigning they are certainly the most competent among those running. It will be interesting to see how they measure up with the other party leaders from now on.
So Labour will have a Corbyn/Watson team. So far by the evidence of campaigning they are certainly the most competent among those running. It will be interesting to see how they measure up with the other party leaders from now on.
Do we know the final round? I think the other votes will split 2/3 to Creasy
Healey, Ken Clarke, David Miliband all lost their party leadership elections and would have been far more dangerous opponents in the general election. However, if members are in an ideological mood they will vote for IDS and Corbyn regardless
Comments
Corbyn is ALREADY doing well, he is ALREADY giving Labourites hope of a socialist future.
But it's not tempting anyone from the SNP.
Indyref 2 will be in the manifesto and will be well supported.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/making-lemonade/
I just can't understand why many of the political commentators, who were made to look like complete numpties, still remain loyal to Jim.
The last poll there, before the debate that gave another gust of wind to Trump, was:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Gravis_Marketing_July_31-August_3_New_Hampshire_Poll1.pdf
Trump 32%
Kasich 15%
Christie 9%
Carson 8%
Walker 8%
Bush 7%
Paul 6%
Cruz 3%
Rubio 3%
Bush was in 5th place.
In fact in the entire country through all the statewide polls Bush is doing OK within striking distance of Trump only in Florida, but Florida doesn't vote this time until March 15th, 20 states would have already voted by then.
Bush would get the stigma of being a loser by then.
Kezia is an ABCer.
MacIntosh is an ABCer when initially asked about it but has since started making pro-Corbyn noises to try and steal the contest.
But MacIntosh is already on record as a diehard ABCer.
SLAB is a rotten core now. an small active base of Blairites and a larger inactive rump of very old members who send their £20 a year but take no other interest outside their postal vote.
That's it. SLAB won't change if Corbyn wins and Labour won't do any better in Scotland. Armageddon is coming for all the Loyalists.
It's really that simple and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. 48% of the electorate will vote SNP with an Indyref commitment.
48% cannot be beaten tactically in a multi-party system.
And I also forgot this poll:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0QF1WL20150810?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter
"Donald Trump continued to defy the laws of political gravity on Monday as a Reuters/Ipsos poll found the real estate mogul holding onto a wide lead among Republicans in the U.S. presidential race despite an acerbic debate and a feud with a female television anchor that have bolstered charges of sexism.
Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate.
His closest rival, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, trails at 12 percent, down from 17 percent before the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8 percent in the online poll, conducted between the end of the debate and Sunday."
So now we have 3 post-debate polls all saying the same thing, Trump's lead either stable or increasing and all his rivals doing worse with the exception of Fiorina or Carson.
The belief is that when sexist and racist comments and opinions are eliminated from commentary and no longer prevalent in public, the underlying attitudes no longer exist.
The problem is that it's just not true. There is a huge difference between being unwilling to state a sexist or racist comment in public and not holding a sexist or racist view (add homophobic, transphobic, any other -phobic or -ist you want).
If the SNP don't include indyref2 in their manifesto, it won't be because they're afraid it'll lose them the election - unless there's a huge scandal they'll win it easily - but because of the prospect of a second No vote.
1. They want Scottish Independence
2. They want competent government
3. They want the least corrupt politicians
The SNP provide all three, SLAB do not provide any of those. Under Corbyn, SLAB would not only continue to fail to supply any of those, they would also be busy fighting Corbyn as their active base is - to a man and woman - completely ABCer.
If you believe otherwise you have no clue about how voting works and how effective tactical voting can ever be.
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/gpreport
This is the sort of report which SLAB should be generating, instead of just recycling crappy tweets and chasing Cybernat trolls !!
It's Television, Trump is a TV performer of the highest caliber.
Like I said, he's the american Berslusconi, if he did it in Italy so can Trump in America, that's why I got on the Trump bandwagon when his odds were 100/1 back in May.
Also I got the correct feeling that as long as Trump insults people that republican voters hate he'll be OK if not doing better in the polls.
The whole "charisma" of Trump is that he's able to insult let's say your boss whom you hate , the difference is that although you may want to say expletives to your boss you probably can't afford to, but Trump can so people are projecting their hate towards their superiors through Trump.
It's like a soap opera.
It's psychology not psephology.
Denied an "Any-To-Come" bet from the biggest bookmaker in the country,how low has the world sunk?
Credit where credit's due.
In Labour heartlands, people voted Labour because their family had always voted Labour. It was a tradition. When the traditional link is snapped, it is not a question of left and right but a question of suddenly being given a choice.
Voters in Central Scotland do not vote SNP because they are believed to be hard left (they are OBVIOUSLY not - neither in manifesto or action). They vote SNP because it is the best choice and they have no traditional voting pattern to prevent the free choice.
In three and four party systems, tactical voting WILL NOT GIVE YOU 50%+ when a party is already on 48%. The 48% wins because tactical voting is not strong enough or complete enough to give the opposition the required numbers.
The SNP manifesto in 2011 had an unconditional commitment to a referendum, and they managed to get 45% of the vote, at a time when independence was polling in the low 30s.
https://twitter.com/DJSkelton/status/630470959116455936
People are not "right" or "left" generally speaking. They don't vote because they are "right" or "left".
The reason people vote, generally speaking, fall into four categories.
1. Tradition (it's what my family/peer group/community always voted)
2. Habit (it's what I always voted (outwith Tradition)
3. Specific over-riding Principle (this could include right/left concepts like "small government" or "welfare state" but in Scotland is most likely to mean Constitutional Status)
4. Expected personal outcome (usually financial)
None of these are offered by "outflanking the SNP to the left". It doesn't work that way outside the fervent imagination of political journalists. And generally people don't consider ANY change unless they are feeling negative towards the party they voted for last time.
None of these factors are going to change with Corbyn. Labour have a generational time scale to recover any ground in Scotland. Unless the SNP truly screw up, say by raising taxes or failing abysmally with a public service (and that means ACTUAL abysmal not political commentary abysmal) they aren't going to go backwards.
Scotland is not a two party system, it is a 4.5 party system (the Lib Dems count as a half). In a 4.5 party system 40% is dominant and the SNP are at 62%
And all the time, the core Loyalist vote is dying and the replacement generations are much, much more disposed towards the SNP and Independence which is consistently polling higher than in September and by May next year is likely to be a solid 50:50 split.
You also miss one of the biggest tactical considerations. All those commentators and journalists who for some unspecified, unsubstantiated and frankly nonsense reason believe a second No vote would stop any further referendum.
That will give a strong incentive for any duped Loyalist diehard to vote SNP to get a second referendum that the same media tell them No would win.
Pretty red on Burnham. But he embarasses himself more and more each day, so feel increasingly relaxed about that.
It appears they were already dead.
Let's see if I have this right. The SNP have reached 62% of the vote and have positive ratings on education, health and the economy. This is after more than EIGHT years in Government!
And you think they should be doing better!
If there was a second NO vote independence would be dead for decades, perhaps for good. Quebec is still in Canada 20 years after voting No by little more than 1% in 1995, its second referendum
Loyalists voted in the referendum because they had to, not because they wanted to, they have no desire to go through the whole thing again even with that incentive there is still the risk
Popular my arsenal.
18 to 24s voted YES and your reliance on a single rogue poll is an embarrassment to your argument.
Absolutely nothing stops a third or fourth Independence Referendum if required. Circumstances chance and a further vote can always be justified.
The reason Quebec hasn't had a third is because the PQ no longer have the necessary control of the province. They bottled it in 2000 and haven't held power on their own since then.
Quebec is the lesson to learn - waiting for a second or third vote is the worst possible choice.
Also a 2016 update (there is a lot of news coming out today from america, after all it's Monday), Fox News has surrendered to Trump:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/donald-trump-and-roger-ailes-make-up-for-now.html
"According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump’s favor. “In the beginning, virtually 100-percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly,” one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation told me. “Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.” "
"In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trumpless Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flack. Both The Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines. "
This was a big personal victory for Trump.
Many said that Fox News would crush him and in the space of a weekend they actually surrendered to him.
I wonder if that strategy will be profitable in 2016?
You only need to try the alternative a few times for it to stick. Once it usually not enough, unless you are particularly impressed by what you find.
That's why a political party has to cater to its heartland. People can fall out of habit of voting for you. That has always been LibDems vehicle for success. They create new patterns, often just as strong as the ones that replace them. But ultimately, as we have seen they can also be broken.
David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe
Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”
http://bit.ly/1gu5iQs
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/scotland-referendum-who-voted-yes-4286743
If you cannot win a rematch you never win at all, end of. Otherwise on your argument there is nothing to stop a vote to rejoin the union just a few years after an independence vote.
The PQ won a majority in the 1998 Quebec provincial elections and won most seats in the 2012 elections and formed a minority government
Only when he disrespects Liz Windsor does the English public really turn on him.
Such a servile nation, demonstrating an utterly repugnant culture of serfdom.
New poll has Corbyn on course for huge victory
#tomorrowspaperstoday http://t.co/4wxc14RVEI
Deputy leadership:
Watson 40%
Creasy 19%
Flint 17%
Eagle 14%
Bradshaw 10%
As I said, the PQ bottled it in 2000 and have never had the necessary majority since 2003. That's their fault, entirely. There is nothing and no law which states that you only get two votes for Independence, just the opposite, the UK Constitutional position has been established by precedent (as it usually is) - a majority for a manifesto with a commitment to a referendum requires Westminster to devolve the power to hold that referendum for the duration of that devolved government.
Imagine Pat Buchanan with 10 billion dollars:
""There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."
"The agenda Bill and Hillary would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units — that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc
Time for a lesson in reserved powers?
If he was any good he'd be winning this.
Part of the reason PQ have not won many majority governments after there second independence referendum is obviously because Quebec voters do not want another vote. on your argument as I said you could also have loyalists pushing for a referendum to rejoin the UK as soon as any vote for independence passes
So far by the evidence of campaigning they are certainly the most competent among those running.
It will be interesting to see how they measure up with the other party leaders from now on.
Free money. I'd be backing down to 1.25 now.
That's the price Ladbrokes will give you on him leading after the first round. No second preference stuff to worry about.