Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now in Scotland we are getting threats of de-selection for pro

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now in Scotland we are getting threats of de-selection for pro-Brexit CON MPs

The paper, the National, it should be pointed out is a strong supporter of the SNP but having said that this does raise a real issue in the one part of the UK where the Tories had real success at GE2017.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,913
    Once Boris is in charge I'm sure he'll sort out a safe seat for Ross in Brexitania.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,084
    Good
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 317
    Third, like spurs and Scottish labour
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,572

    Third, like spurs and Scottish labour

    LOL
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,572
    I thought Jezbollah was going to win back Scotland for Labour......

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.

    At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,357
    If we are going to have threads on Scotland based on the editorial line dictated daily to the National by the SNP, then I presume the next step is to have threads IN SHOUTY CAPITALS which take as fact the opinions on Brexit of the Daily Express.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 906

    Third, like spurs and Scottish labour

    Fourth by seats according to Electoral Calculus (Lib Dems third). Amazing.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,746
    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,871

    If we are going to have threads on Scotland based on the editorial line dictated daily to the National by the SNP, then I presume the next step is to have threads IN SHOUTY CAPITALS which take as fact the opinions on Brexit of the Daily Express.

    If you don't like it here you don't have to come. What it this is significant even if the sort of it is very much SMP inspired. We don't get that
    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    I blame Putin puppets like you
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,202
    edited January 3
    From Previous Thread

    One of the things that always annoys the living daylights out of me is the constant repetition of the view that we only have hand car washes because of immigration. And that, if we didn't have immigration, then we'd have sensible machine car washes and productivity was higher.

    This would be a plausible answer were it not for the fact that big industrial car wash makers - companies like Coleman Hanna - have reported falling sales in all geographical regions.

    If it were simply cheap immigrants making industrial car washes unattractive, then you would expect that places with few immigrants would see demand rise, while those with many would see it fall. On the contrary, there has been widespread sales declines because... ummm... people quite like having their car cleaned by actual people.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,923
    edited January 3
    Given how much things have been in flux in Scottish seats, with some truly remarkable switches between several parties in a short space of time, I would even as an outsider guess that none of the SCON MPs can sit too comfortably, even if for the moment polls like those in the header suggest they would hold on to what the gained so well last time. The Lab/LD outcomes are a little hilarious - the LDs are still so low in Scotland as elsewhere, but they seem to cluster such vote as they still have in Scotland pretty well.

    If we are going to have threads on Scotland based on the editorial line dictated daily to the National by the SNP, then I presume the next step is to have threads IN SHOUTY CAPITALS which take as fact the opinions on Brexit of the Daily Express.

    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    I blame Putin puppets like you
    I'm more of a Putin marionette myself.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 533
    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 925
    remember when tory members where going to ditch Soubry - never happened. Just because an MP has opposing Brexit views to the members doesn't mean deselection will happen
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,149
    edited January 4
    On topic: If he's the candidate next time, the SNP could have a lot of fun with the videos of him fawning over Boris Johnson.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,923
    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.
    .

    It's a vanilla glitch that creates multiple versions of a thread when the first comments are made.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,923
    I see the very striking Saoirse Ronan is staring into our souls from the top of The National. Surprised Chris Pine is not on the other side, given 'historical scottish figure' movies seem to be the hot thing at this present moment.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,925
    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.

    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.

    Labour polled 27.1% in Scotland in 2017 despite the fact that a mere three weeks earlier the polls had them languishing at 19%. The most recent poll - from Panelbase in early December - gives Labour 26% ie levelpegging with the Tories. On that basis, 30% for Labour next time appears a realistic prospect. Polls in 2017 had the SNP on 41/42% yet they ended up on less than 37%. Circa 33% for them next time looks a reasonable bet.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,887
    edited January 4
    Good night all. Just a brief reminder that today (4th Jan) is the 9th anniversary of the death of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who died in 2010.

    Mr Yamaguchi is notable as having survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, even travelling back to his hometown and returning to work three days later despite serious burns on much of his body. Indeed, he was at work being berated by a supervisor as 'crazy' for claiming that a single bomb could destroy a whole city when the factory they were stood in, in Nagasaki, was suddenly destroyed.

    It is believed that hundreds of people survived both bombs, 165 were brought together for a documentary in 2006, but Mr Yamaguchi remains the only person formally recognised as such by the Japanese government.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 473
    I’m always amused by the assumed survival of Labour’s Ian Murray in Edinburgh South. Estimates based on the 2017 vote pattern plus Scotland wide swings look shaky, but assuming the Motningside Tory voters will continue to vote tactically to prop him up seems wishful thinking.

    Also, in Aberdeen following the 2017 local elections, 9 labour councillors allied with the 11 conservatives to keep out the 19 strong SNP group and were suspended by their party. The fallout from that will be ugly.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 232
    Who will be constructing the hard border? Who will man it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984
    A whole thread for Roaster Ross !
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,544
    kle4 said:

    I see the very striking Saoirse Ronan is staring into our souls from the top of The National. Surprised Chris Pine is not on the other side, given 'historical scottish figure' movies seem to be the hot thing at this present moment.

    When discussing Chris Pine in a Scottish film I believe it is compulsory to mention his penis, which made an appearance in the recent "Outlaw King".

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,501
    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.

    It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,092
    justin124 said:

    MJW said:

    Not sure why l, .

    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.

    Labour polled 27.1% in Scotland in 2017 despite the fact that a mere three weeks earlier the polls had them languishing at 19%. The most recent poll - from Panelbase in early December - gives Labour 26% ie levelpegging with the Tories. On that basis, 30% for Labour next time appears a realistic prospect. Polls in 2017 had the SNP on 41/42% yet they ended up on less than 37%. Circa 33% for them next time looks a reasonable bet.
    That's certainly positive thinking. Unless you are in Scotland and know the dynamics It just looks like you are picking out various scenarios and extrapolating a trend to suit what you would like to happen.

    Personally I think this is the tricky part of what Corbyn is looking to do. Hold a supporting coalition together from both remain and leave supporters, and improve in Scotland. It's like 3D chess and I cannot see how Corbyn wins. What he really needs is for Brexit to go through whilst looking like he is both honouring the result of the referendum, and taking steps to reverse it, and then to hone a position to maximise the left of centre vote that is more compelling than Theresa May saying she wanted a huge majority to ram through Brexit, whilst also alienating the core Pensioner vote with unpopular proposals on social care. If he can do that he deserves to be Prime Minister.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302
    edited January 4
    snip
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,202
    rpjs said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.

    It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
    The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.

    It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.

    But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,202
    Nancy Pelosi is in good shape for 78.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,149
    edited January 4
    rcs1000 said:

    But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.

    I suppose the fundamental split among Brexiteers could be characterised as being between those who truly do want to unwind the integration, and those who would like to keep it but just have an ideological objection to organising it supranationally.

    If you achieve a bespoke settlement that does the latter, the first group will think Brexit was pointless, and if you achieve the former, the second group will think Brexit was a mistake.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 978
    rcs1000 said:

    Nancy Pelosi is in good shape for 78.

    She looks like she's had some work done.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 32,146

    rcs1000 said:

    Nancy Pelosi is in good shape for 78.

    She looks like she's had some work done.
    And that hair is not a colour found in nature...

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-did-nancy-pelosis-new-face
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,220
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,652
    "Putin puppet."
    "death cult Brexit."

    nice.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    Toms said:

    "Putin puppet."
    "death cult Brexit."

    nice.

    No deal Leavers regard the potential for avoidable deaths and unemployment as an acceptable price to pay for the cultural shift. It is literally a death cult.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    A question; how does YouGov or any other reputable polling organisation perform a poll of members of any party? Surely the list of members is private?

    I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable. ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    The Tories should have got rid of their extremists years ago.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4

    A question; how does YouGov or any other reputable polling organisation perform a poll of members of any party? Surely the list of members is private?

    I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable. ;)

    One of the questions they periodically ask panellists is whether they are a member of various organisations - not just political parties but a wide range: National Trust, RSPB, WI, a long list of charities and organisations. This makes it easy for them to run a poll of "National Trust members" and the like whenever they want to. Edit/ membership is therefore self declared.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4

    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.

    They are mostly pensioners thinking they have no skin in the game.

    As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.

    It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
    The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.

    It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.

    But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
    It's about speed. If they had confidence in their project, and the depth of public support for it, they would be willing to accept it as a process of progressively unwinding forty years of integration. But their self doubt, impatience, and fear that support will melt away drives them to push the country quickly over the cliff.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    rpjs said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.

    It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
    For a brief instant, the clouds of self delusion lift and Sean sees the reality of his decision, until the veil drops again and he returns to ranting denial. It seems he cannot live without a demon to tilt at.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,785
    IanB2 said:


    They are mostly pensioners thinking they have no skin in the game.

    As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.

    They got the triple lock the wrong way around. Maximum pension rise should be 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is smallest.
  • aldo_macbaldo_macb Posts: 2
    Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
  • aldo_macb said:

    Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.

    Absolutely. The SNP won't deal with the Tories. Labour won't deal with the Tories (what where those Aberdeen councillors thinking???). There doesn't need to be even a formal deal between the SNP and Labour to form a government, confidence and supply would do it.

    Labour in Scotland needs to be a semi-independent party like the Scottish Tories, their problem is that they lack a leader up there with any semblance of umph and the cult won't allow any dissent against Jezbollah.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    IanB2 said:

    A question; how does YouGov or any other reputable polling organisation perform a poll of members of any party? Surely the list of members is private?

    I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable. ;)

    One of the questions they periodically ask panellists is whether they are a member of various organisations - not just political parties but a wide range: National Trust, RSPB, WI, a long list of charities and organisations. This makes it easy for them to run a poll of "National Trust members" and the like whenever they want to. Edit/ membership is therefore self declared.
    That's what I thought, thanks.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850
    How many under-threat pro-Brexit Scottish Tory MPs are there?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,809
    HYUFD said:

    Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.

    At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England

    And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."

    According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 412

    How many under-threat pro-Brexit Scottish Tory MPs are there?

    4 in total.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 32,146
    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.

    They are mostly pensioners thinking they have no skin in the game.

    As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.
    It’s not the baby boomers fault they vote in greater numbers than others.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262
    edited January 4

    aldo_macb said:

    Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.

    Absolutely. The SNP won't deal with the Tories. Labour won't deal with the Tories (what where those Aberdeen councillors thinking???). There doesn't need to be even a formal deal between the SNP and Labour to form a government, confidence and supply would do it.

    Labour in Scotland needs to be a semi-independent party like the Scottish Tories, their problem is that they lack a leader up there with any semblance of umph and the cult won't allow any dissent against Jezbollah.
    In 2007 the SNP did deal with the Tories to get a majority at Holyrood. It led ultimately to their overall majority.

    To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.

    However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or even Plaid on a case by case basis. Moreover, it would be taken as a sign they're in the wane. It might even lead to a leadership challenge, or to the loss of Blackford's seat forcing an election. So they can't really demand anything, or if they do, he can reject it.

    If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.

    The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.

    So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.

    They are mostly pensioners thinking they have no skin in the game.

    As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.
    It’s not the baby boomers fault they vote in greater numbers than others.
    It's not about "fault". It's about the distortion or bias in world view when the majority of those voting have no current experience of, or (direct) stake in, the labour market.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961

    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.

    When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,809
    rcs1000 said:

    From Previous Thread

    One of the things that always annoys the living daylights out of me is the constant repetition of the view that we only have hand car washes because of immigration. And that, if we didn't have immigration, then we'd have sensible machine car washes and productivity was higher.

    This would be a plausible answer were it not for the fact that big industrial car wash makers - companies like Coleman Hanna - have reported falling sales in all geographical regions.

    If it were simply cheap immigrants making industrial car washes unattractive, then you would expect that places with few immigrants would see demand rise, while those with many would see it fall. On the contrary, there has been widespread sales declines because... ummm... people quite like having their car cleaned by actual people.

    I'm in Surrey which doesn't have the highest of immigration rates (though that is changing in Woking). The hand car washes around here are all done by Eastern Europeans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262

    When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option.

    Is that why Corbyn's so anxious to have one?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 868

    A question; how does YouGov or any other reputable polling organisation perform a poll of members of any party? Surely the list of members is private?

    I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable. ;)

    It is part of a scholarly research project

    https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/

    I presume that they have found the members for YouGov to poll for them?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980

    A question; how does YouGov or any other reputable polling organisation perform a poll of members of any party? Surely the list of members is private?

    I am, of course, excluding ConservativeHome from the discussion, as they are neither a polling organisation or reputable. ;)

    It is part of a scholarly research project

    https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/

    I presume that they have found the members for YouGov to poll for them?
    That won't be collecting names and addresses, let alone phone numbers and email addresses. YouGov do it as I said below.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,545
    edited January 4
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.

    At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England

    And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."

    According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
    Yup the calculus of Brexit and Indy voting blocks in acotlamd is fascinating and I confess I do not understand it.

    The SNP shed masses of Brexiters between 2015 and 2017, a over a third of 2015 snp voters were Brexiteers, only a quarter of 2017 snp voters were Brexiters.

    I think the unionist vote outweighs the Brexit vote round Aberdeen way so plenty of Remain Lab types will vote for absolute Roaster Ross to keep out the hated SNP.

    But, I have no clue.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838
    SeanT said:

    fpt

    Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.

    I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.

    If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.

    What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.

    Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.

    Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.

    Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.

    Finding someone to blame for something is a lot more fun than the hard work involved in coming up with a solution.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961
    ydoethur said:

    When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option.

    Is that why Corbyn's so anxious to have one?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*

    Corbyn ticks most of the boxes Tory members do, for sure.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4
    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262
    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care, everyone!

    But it isn't the 6th, unless I've done the most imposing oversleep since Rip Van Winkle.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care, everyone!

    But it isn't the 6th, unless I've done the most imposing oversleep since Rip Van Winkle.
    Be grateful to have early warning!
  • eekeek Posts: 2,588
    ydoethur said:

    When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option.

    Is that why Corbyn's so anxious to have one?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    There is no evidence that Corbyn dislikes foreigners except for those who a descendants of Abraham...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option.

    Is that why Corbyn's so anxious to have one?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    There is no evidence that Corbyn dislikes foreigners except for those who a descendants of Abraham...
    Well, I'm told he screws a Mexican...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care, everyone!

    But it isn't the 6th, unless I've done the most imposing oversleep since Rip Van Winkle.
    That is the very definition of a sudden epiphany.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,775
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    From Previous Thread

    One of the things that always annoys the living daylights out of me is the constant repetition of the view that we only have hand car washes because of immigration. And that, if we didn't have immigration, then we'd have sensible machine car washes and productivity was higher.

    This would be a plausible answer were it not for the fact that big industrial car wash makers - companies like Coleman Hanna - have reported falling sales in all geographical regions.

    If it were simply cheap immigrants making industrial car washes unattractive, then you would expect that places with few immigrants would see demand rise, while those with many would see it fall. On the contrary, there has been widespread sales declines because... ummm... people quite like having their car cleaned by actual people.

    I'm in Surrey which doesn't have the highest of immigration rates (though that is changing in Woking). The hand car washes around here are all done by Eastern Europeans.
    Also if you look at population figures all over the world, we're not short of people. Labour cost is pretty low wherever you look.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care, everyone!

    But it isn't the 6th, unless I've done the most imposing oversleep since Rip Van Winkle.
    That is the very definition of a sudden epiphany.
    You're on a golden streak this morning, Sir!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Good morning, everyone.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838
    Incidentally I don't think it will be long before we see threats of deselection of Brexiteer Conservative MPs in England. It's the obvious strategy for remainers. Many Conservative Associations are very small in number and it would only take a handful of determined Europhiles to get a foothold.

    Here's a handy guide.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,970
    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4

    Incidentally I don't think it will be long before we see threats of deselection of Brexiteer Conservative MPs in England. It's the obvious strategy for remainers. Many Conservative Associations are very small in number and it would only take a handful of determined Europhiles to get a foothold.

    Here's a handy guide.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html

    I am guessing you don't mix with too many Tory members?

    More likely that those in marginals at least will get their desserts at the next election.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 412
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.

    At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England

    And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."

    According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
    Aberdeen south is an old Tory seat. The manifesto he fought on was for the union and not Brexit. I have a copy of the brochure. The Tory vote in Aberdeen south probably matched the constituency in terms of leavers and remainers. Since the election Scotland has become more Brexit sceptic not less. He is definitely at risk

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838
    IanB2 said:

    Incidentally I don't think it will be long before we see threats of deselection of Brexiteer Conservative MPs in England. It's the obvious strategy for remainers. Many Conservative Associations are very small in number and it would only take a handful of determined Europhiles to get a foothold.

    Here's a handy guide.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html

    I am guessing you don't mix with too many Tory members?
    No I don't. But the few I do know are pretty pro-EU. I'll accept they might be unrepresentative.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 4
    Deselection or otherwise is rightly a matter for local constituency associations. CCHQ have had too strong a hold on candidate selections for too long to the detriment of the parliamentary party. There are have been threats of similar actions against Remain supporting MPs like Soubry for a while so getting steamed up about the reverse, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, is pointless. It simply shows how strongly people feel about Brexit and how divisive it is. Fortunately, most Tories seem to have a better perspective of things if today’s front page of the Telegraph is correct.

    What this does do however, is destroy the moral high ground Tories would otherwise claim when Momentum backed Labour candidates start to oust moderate sitting MPs. Both parties are clearly as bad as each other.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984
    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.

    Why is that ? The mean day the christmas credit card bill drops through the door ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mr. Recidivist, I'm sure that'll end well.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,809
    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.

    That 25% figure really is silly. It's a shame there isn't a graphic similar to the one ONS do for births:

    https://tinyurl.com/yb7f6cvy
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 4

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,970
    Mr Meeks,

    "So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment."

    I've already suggested we fence off Beachy Head to prevent hysterical Remainers throwing themselves off. I'm just a soft shite really.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
    So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,262

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
    So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
    What is an 'avoidable death', exactly? After all, death is ultimately unavoidable for all of us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    ydoethur said:

    aldo_macb said:

    Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.

    Absolutely. The SNP won't deal with the Tories. Labour won't deal with the Tories (what where those Aberdeen councillors thinking???). There doesn't need to be even a formal deal between the SNP and Labour to form a government, confidence and supply would do it.

    Labour in Scotland needs to be a semi-independent party like the Scottish Tories, their problem is that they lack a leader up there with any semblance of umph and the cult won't allow any dissent against Jezbollah.
    In 2007 the SNP did deal with the Tories to get a majority at Holyrood. It led ultimately to their overall majority.

    To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.

    However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or even Plaid on a case by case basis. Moreover, it would be taken as a sign they're in the wane. It might even lead to a leadership challenge, or to the loss of Blackford's seat forcing an election. So they can't really demand anything, or if they do, he can reject it.

    If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.

    The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.

    So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
    The greater the SNP presence the more Corbyn will be reliant on them and the more they can force him to accept their BINO permanent Single Market and Customs Union agenda and ironically the less the chance then of any Yes vote in any indyref2 given Yes only sometimes gets over 50% in a No Deal scenario
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383

    If we are going to have threads on Scotland based on the editorial line dictated daily to the National by the SNP, then I presume the next step is to have threads IN SHOUTY CAPITALS which take as fact the opinions on Brexit of the Daily Express.

    Moron
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.

    That 25% figure really is silly. It's a shame there isn't a graphic similar to the one ONS do for births:

    https://tinyurl.com/yb7f6cvy
    Lol, from that graph one can work out the most popular date for making sprogs is around the new year.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 4

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
    So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
    You actually have to Leave under a no deal Brexit to find out whether your scare mongering would actually be correct. As you have no evidence or reasonable basis for assuming it would,let alone for assuming any increase would be due to Brexit, your argument is, as I said earlier pointless.

    All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,809
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.

    That 25% figure really is silly. It's a shame there isn't a graphic similar to the one ONS do for births:

    https://tinyurl.com/yb7f6cvy
    Lol, from that graph one can work out the most popular date for making sprogs is around the new year.
    I reckon part of that is that some couples aim to have children at the start of the academic year. But July is quite a common month to be born in and I reckon that's got something to do with the nights drawing in in October and not much else to do!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
    So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
    You actually have to Leave under a no deal Brexit to find out whether your scare mongering would actually be correct. As you have no evidence or reasonable basis for assuming it would,let alone for assuming any increase would be due to Brexit, your argument is, as I said earlier pointless.

    All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
    The Health Secretary thinks it's possible. So there's a piece of evidence for you to chew on:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-matt-hancock-refuses-to-rule-out-deaths-from-medicine-shortages-in-uk-crashes-out-of-a3990706.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305

    Meanwhile death cult Brexit has infected an absolute majority of Conservative members:



    There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.

    57% of Tory members back No Deal, 23% back May's Deal and 15% Remain on that poll.

    So most Tory members still likely prefer May's Deal to Remain but No Deal to both, the country as a whole though temds to prefer May's Deal to No Deal and has more support for Remain.

    Given a majority of Labour members back EUref2 and Remain and a majority of Tory members back No Deal neither May and Corbyn represent their members on Brexit and are actually probably closer to voters as a whole as a result
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383
    justin124 said:

    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.

    MJW said:

    Not sure why (nothing controversial in there) but comment appears to have disappeared - here it is again.

    I think people always seem to forget quite what a stumbling block for Labour Scotland is. Seven of their top 20 target seats are SNP held plus more than 20 of the 70 odd they need to get a majority. Unlike in England, where although Corbyn is personally unpopular, there's an anti-Tory/anti-Brexit/need for change dynamic that favours Labour in parts of the country should the Tories drop some voters by screwing up Brexit and staunch remainers hold their noses, Scotland looks to be going the other way. The SNP have their own appeal as a party of radical change, are pro-EU, while Corbyn and his man Richard Leonard are some of the least likely to draw centrist and Tory voters into an anti-SNP coalition. Plus, of course Corbyn's Islingtonian declarative socialism goes down far less well north of the border. Without those seats (and lose some Lab ones too), you're looking at the biggest post-45 swing other than 1997 to get a majority and you're looking at much tougher places Brexit-wise to get over the largest party line.

    Labour polled 27.1% in Scotland in 2017 despite the fact that a mere three weeks earlier the polls had them languishing at 19%. The most recent poll - from Panelbase in early December - gives Labour 26% ie levelpegging with the Tories. On that basis, 30% for Labour next time appears a realistic prospect. Polls in 2017 had the SNP on 41/42% yet they ended up on less than 37%. Circa 33% for them next time looks a reasonable bet.
    Wildly optimistic there, latest polls from Oct 18 - Dec 18 have Labour down to 2 seats , all to SNP.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    edited January 4
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care on Sunday, everyone! 25% more deaths than the average day.

    That 25% figure really is silly. It's a shame there isn't a graphic similar to the one ONS do for births:

    https://tinyurl.com/yb7f6cvy
    According to the BBC its based on the average daily death count in the UK since 2005. If they are right, its simply a matter of maths (max daily deaths / average daily deaths). So the data isn't silly, even if making a news story out of it might be. The BBC's explanation was the combination of seasonal cold weather and the elderly and ill hanging on for the holiday period.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.

    At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England

    And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."

    According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
    Thomson got 42% not 33% in Aberdeen South in 2017
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    WARNING: 6th January is the most common date for death during the year. Take care, everyone!

    But it isn't the 6th, unless I've done the most imposing oversleep since Rip Van Winkle.
    We should all just sleep through the 6th.....
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,970
    Mr Meeks,

    I refuse to rule out that I could drop dead tomorrow, or the day after as that's January 6th. That doesn't mean there's a causal link.

    Look upon Brexit as an adventure, strap yourself in for a bumpy ride. Ignore the snowflakes.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850

    How many under-threat pro-Brexit Scottish Tory MPs are there?

    4 in total.

    Which seats would they be?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,980
    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    I refuse to rule out that I could drop dead tomorrow, or the day after as that's January 6th. That doesn't mean there's a causal link.

    Look upon Brexit as an adventure, strap yourself in for a bumpy ride. Ignore the snowflakes.

    The trouble is that those on the ride mostly aren't those who volunteered for the adventure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    IanB2 said:

    Incidentally I don't think it will be long before we see threats of deselection of Brexiteer Conservative MPs in England. It's the obvious strategy for remainers. Many Conservative Associations are very small in number and it would only take a handful of determined Europhiles to get a foothold.

    Here's a handy guide.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/john-e-strafford-a-short-guide-to-deselecting-your-mp.html

    I am guessing you don't mix with too many Tory members?

    ...
    Given just how few of them there are, not very many people do.

    They are, of course, hugely over-represented on PB (as, to be fair, are members of other parties).
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.

    So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
    The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.

    To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
    So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
    You actually have to Leave under a no deal Brexit to find out whether your scare mongering would actually be correct. As you have no evidence or reasonable basis for assuming it would,let alone for assuming any increase would be due to Brexit, your argument is, as I said earlier pointless.

    All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
    The Health Secretary thinks it's possible. So there's a piece of evidence for you to chew on:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-matt-hancock-refuses-to-rule-out-deaths-from-medicine-shortages-in-uk-crashes-out-of-a3990706.html
    Well, whoopee doo. That’s not evidence at all. Its just mere speculation which is not specific at all.

    Why do you care so little about avoidable deaths that occur now when we are in the EU and care so little about the 1 m who are currently unemployed.
This discussion has been closed.