Byron wrote:Zoon, as is now clear, England ain't Scotland!

The Scottish wipeout's tied to a specific, existential mistake by Labour: sharing a platform with the Tories in the 2014 independence referendum; compounded by Cameron popping up on TV the day after and announcing English votes for English laws. They're forever branded Red Tories now. That's why Corbyn insisted on a separate Labour Remain campaign.

Nothing similar's happened in England. UKIP's frontman's resigned, and since he marginalized any potential competitor, there's no-one to replace him. They offer nothing to overcome tribal loyalty to Labour in the English rust belt, and if anything, Corbyn's mix of fairweather support for the EU* mixed with an anti-austerity, pro-industry agenda is tailor-made for them. Unless he's caught tag-teaming a pig with the Bullingdon set, they're not going anywhere. And probably not even then.

* Not disputing the effort he put into the campaign, which was considerable

Yes, it's now clear that Scottish Labour party voters had different priorities, but it wasn't clear beforehand; the Labour party did rather take Scotland for granted before it suddenly wasn't there. I'm speaking as multi generational Labour myself, it would definitely go against the grain to vote otherwise, but I don't think I'm the only one who would bridle at being assumed invariably compliant.

zoon wrote:

Byron wrote:What evidence is there that tribal Labour voters will defect en masse to UKIP? Yes, some have gone, but, as shown by the government's woeful majority, it hardly led to a collapse in the Labour vote in 2015, and the referendum's been and gone.

Labour's vanished in Scotland, it's not entirely safe to take voters for granted.

Agreed, it is not safe to take voters for granted.

Potentially the referendum has shaken people up. If it goes anything like Indyref the next GE could see an end to traditional voter inertia. False promises, scare tactics, smears and lack of respect for voters could mean disaffected supporters abandoning the party, as happened in Scotland.
A third of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave. I can see the potential loss of 1/4 to 1/2 of the 2015 Labour voters if Labour seems to be scheming to deny the voters' mandate. It is a worst case scenario that could be avoided. Corbyn would seem better placed to avoid it than Smith.

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

Byron wrote:What evidence is there that tribal Labour voters will defect en masse to UKIP? Yes, some have gone, but, as shown by the government's woeful majority, it hardly led to a collapse in the Labour vote in 2015, and the referendum's been and gone.

Labour's vanished in Scotland, it's not entirely safe to take voters for granted.

Agreed, it is not safe to take voters for granted.

Potentially the referendum has shaken people up. If it goes anything like Indyref the next GE could see an end to traditional voter inertia. False promises, scare tactics, smears and lack of respect for voters could mean disaffected supporters abandoning the party, as happened in Scotland.
A third of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave. I can see the potential loss of 1/4 to 1/2 of the 2015 Labour voters if Labour seems to be scheming to deny the voters' mandate. It is a worst case scenario that could be avoided. Corbyn would seem better placed to avoid it than Smith.

Which voters' mandate? The 2015 manifesto most of them voted for, or the more socialist vision of the new party membership which is largely young and idealistic?

Byron wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Thanks for posting that.

Looks like a reasonable record.
The Europhile stuff could be a problem for some GE voters, especially past support for greater EU integration and current suggestions of a second referendum.

It could, but Smith's only real shot at leadership is to outflank Corbyn on the EU, and bag support from the overwhelming majority of Labour Remainers.

Generally, Corbyn's not, despite all the Michael Foot smears, stuck in the past. His policies on railways and a national investment bank are modern and flexible. But his on-off relationship with Lexit's a relic of the '70s, alien to young voters who've traveled exensively in Europe, identify as European before British, and will do all they can to maintain their EU citizenship. A veteran of the Bennite crusade against the EEC, I suspect he just doesn't get how much EU membership's tied up with their identity, how betrayed they feel, and how wrenching it'd be to have it all stripped away.

I wouldn't rule out a Damascene conversion, however.

I can't really judge the balance here. Plainly there are a LOT of angry Remainers, many of whom would seemingly do almost anything to make the result go away. There are LOTs of Leavers being very vocal about how pathetic losing Remainers are and there is hint that stalling or fudging exit would make them very angry indeed.
How many Remainers would stand up for democratic principles? How many abstainers or reluctant Remainers would be emboldened by the win and vote Leave next time?
How many will vote tactically to exclude any anti-Brexit candidates?

I don't want to leave, but I accept the result. We should leave. Exactly what that means is unclear, but I think it means at least that we give up our representation on Commission, Council and Parliament and pay substantially less in as a headline figure.

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

Byron wrote:What evidence is there that tribal Labour voters will defect en masse to UKIP? Yes, some have gone, but, as shown by the government's woeful majority, it hardly led to a collapse in the Labour vote in 2015, and the referendum's been and gone.

Labour's vanished in Scotland, it's not entirely safe to take voters for granted.

Agreed, it is not safe to take voters for granted.

Potentially the referendum has shaken people up. If it goes anything like Indyref the next GE could see an end to traditional voter inertia. False promises, scare tactics, smears and lack of respect for voters could mean disaffected supporters abandoning the party, as happened in Scotland.
A third of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave. I can see the potential loss of 1/4 to 1/2 of the 2015 Labour voters if Labour seems to be scheming to deny the voters' mandate. It is a worst case scenario that could be avoided. Corbyn would seem better placed to avoid it than Smith.

Which voters' mandate? The 2015 manifesto most of them voted for, or the more socialist vision of the new party membership which is largely young and idealistic?

The referendum result.

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:
Labour's vanished in Scotland, it's not entirely safe to take voters for granted.

Agreed, it is not safe to take voters for granted.

Potentially the referendum has shaken people up. If it goes anything like Indyref the next GE could see an end to traditional voter inertia. False promises, scare tactics, smears and lack of respect for voters could mean disaffected supporters abandoning the party, as happened in Scotland.
A third of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave. I can see the potential loss of 1/4 to 1/2 of the 2015 Labour voters if Labour seems to be scheming to deny the voters' mandate. It is a worst case scenario that could be avoided. Corbyn would seem better placed to avoid it than Smith.

Which voters' mandate? The 2015 manifesto most of them voted for, or the more socialist vision of the new party membership which is largely young and idealistic?

The referendum result.

Fair enough, I didn't read your post carefully. I suppose this could be a point of difference between the new party membership, which I suspect of being fairly heavily Remain, and the core vote?

GrahamH wrote:I can't really judge the balance here. Plainly there are a LOT of angry Remainers, many of whom would seemingly do almost anything to make the result go away. There are LOTs of Leavers being very vocal about how pathetic losing Remainers are and there is hint that stalling or fudging exit would make them very angry indeed.
How many Remainers would stand up for democratic principles? How many abstainers or reluctant Remainers would be emboldened by the win and vote Leave next time?
How many will vote tactically to exclude any anti-Brexit candidates?

I don't want to leave, but I accept the result. We should leave. Exactly what that means is unclear, but I think it means at least that we give up our representation on Commission, Council and Parliament and pay substantially less in as a headline figure.

I hold the result in contempt, won as it was on ignorance, ulterior motives, and outright fraud, but it should be deferred to in England and Wales.

However, part and parcel of popular sovereignty is the right to change your mind and undo what's been done. Treating the referendum as holy writ, and denying the people a rerun if that desire becomes apparent, combines the worst of elitism and majoritarianism. Democratic it ain't.

Interestingly, Scotland never felt imprisoned by indyref1. In his resignation speech, Salmond said the dream never dies, and was already plotting a comeback. The SNP of course bagged a Westminster landslide within months. Less than two years later, and a rerun looks, as Sturgeon said, highly likely. I suspect it's 'cause the authoritarian nonsense of parliamentary supremacy is alien to Scotland, as is the surly cap-doffing of England. Sovereign will is a concept sorely lacking south of the border.

Scottish Labour did ritually commit suicide during the referendum in 2014, but their support was already going. That just finished them off. SNP had won 2 Holyrood elections *before* 2014, and heavily routed them from local government, with Scottish Labour reduced to claiming "victory" (ably supported and reported by BBC) when they simply held on to control in Glasgow, massively reduced. They lost that local election, although people might not have realised from how they reacted.

Labour in the rest of UK have the same problems, mostly, that Scottish Labour had, considering they had the same policies (ie UK Labour policies) and the same personnel (Scottish labour doesnt exist, or didnt then). The difference up until now has been the lack of an available alternative for Labour voters to go TO. Sadly, UKIP have taken some disaffected ex Labour working class voters. It's a different situation, clearly, but an equivalent to SNP without the national element would surely result in the same destruction of UK Labour in England as Scottish Labour here.

If there were an alternative.

Or unless Labour change (something Corby appears to be the only hope for).

Oh, SLab's been on the slide alright, probably for decades: viewing Scotland as North Britain, useful for beefing up those Westminster majorities, they've never been a good replacement for the distinctively Scottish Unionist Party (from whom the proto-SNP split way-back-when), who committed a ritual suicide of their own in the '60s by shacking up with, yup, the Tories again. Thatcher and then Blair may have fueled discontent, but the roots go right back to the '70s, and the bollocks Labour made of oil and devolution mk1.

As for England, agree that Labour could be displaced, but not by the Kippers (if only 'cause the egomanical Farage drove away all other talent). And it'd likely take decades: the SNP have been building since the Unionists shuffled off the scene, and had the twin boosts of North Sea oil and Thatcherism. Unlike SLab, Labour's not gonna be seen as a bad import, and in the deindustrialized hinterlands, affection for the Labour myth still runs deep.

Scottish Labour did ritually commit suicide during the referendum in 2014

They put the principle of the union ahead of their own welfare which as always doesn't tend to end that well. It's blatantly obvious the difference between England and Scotland is not the politicians career middle class people who like power ,but the electorate which don't have the English superiority complex of being better than the rest of the world

PS why hasn't the SNP got back to me on English immigration policy haven't they got anything better to do!

Don't enter through the Firth of Clyde and ya should be fine.

Counting the days still Sep 10th

Byron wrote:denying the people a rerun if that desire becomes apparent, combines the worst of elitism and majoritarianism. Democratic it ain't.

What do you count as "apparent desire" in deciding if there should be a rerun?

Worse of elitism might be to disregard a result and those that voted for it on the basis that they (but not you) were incompetent to make a decision, which pretty much rules out democracy.

The criterion used to trigger a Northern Irish referendum are as good as any: sustained polling in favor of remaining in the EU, say in the 60%+ region. Alternatively, a certain number of signatures demanding a rerun, as Switzerland does (and no one, I think, can accuse the Swiss of being undemocratic).

The result shouldn't be disregarded, which is why I said it should be deferred to. However, it should absolutely be reconsidered if that's what the people want.

Byron wrote:The criterion used to trigger a Northern Irish referendum are as good as any: sustained polling in favor of remaining in the EU, say in the 60%+ region. Alternatively, a certain number of signatures demanding a rerun, as Switzerland does (and no one, I think, can accuse the Swiss of being undemocratic).

The result shouldn't be disregarded, which is why I said it should be deferred to. However, it should absolutely be reconsidered if that's what the people want.

Fair enough, but at the moment the people don't want another vote.

And despite growing demands from Labour MPs for a second referendum after a Brexit deal has been reached with the EU, that option is rejected even more decisively, by 57 per cent, and supported by only 29 per cent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40721.html

Byron wrote:
As for England, agree that Labour could be displaced, but not by the Kippers (if only 'cause the egomanical Farage drove away all other talent).

Agreed, but a minority do seem to have moved to them as a sort of anti politics as usual vote, something a different left of centre party might have attracted. Along with the rest!

Byron wrote:And it'd likely take decades: the SNP have been building since the Unionists shuffled off the scene, and had the twin boosts of North Sea oil and Thatcherism. Unlike SLab, Labour's not gonna be seen as a bad import, and in the deindustrialized hinterlands, affection for the Labour myth still runs deep.

Not sure it needs to take decades, the SNP were literally a joke in the view of many voters even after devolution. The speed with which SNP became electable was incredible. Labour's fall from grace in Scotland happened over a long time, but the move to SNP en masse almost, happened between 2007 and 2011. And in the middle, Labour had a creditable win in the 2010 election in Scotland.

I still think the fast swing from Labour to SNP in Scotland was a tipping point after Blair and Iraq, and a tentative collective decision by around half the voters to give them a chance in 2007 because labour were SO. SO. SO. BAD. Both here and at Westminster. SNP only won that election by 1 seat more than Labour.

Then they showed they were competent, and whoosh .... labour gone.

mrjonno wrote:

Scottish Labour did ritually commit suicide during the referendum in 2014

They put the principle of the union ahead of their own welfare which as always doesn't tend to end that well. It's blatantly obvious the difference between England and Scotland is not the politicians career middle class people who like power ,but the electorate which don't have the English superiority complex of being better than the rest of the world

No, the problem with Scottish Labour wasnt that they put the union ahead of their own welfare. (Some did, and I wouldnt criticise them, and those people didnt attack or smear or join in the Tory run campaign). No, most put their welfare (their party interest and personal careers) ahead of everything else, but didnt understand that when they smeared and attacked those who were voting yes or considering it, they were smearing their own labour voters. The same thing is happening in WM right now, the Labour PLP arent doing what they are because they are putting country ahead of their own personal welfare. They are putting their own personal careers ahead of the people who elect them, and might well do to UK Labour in the end what Scottish Labour did to themselves.

mrjonno wrote:PS why hasn't the SNP got back to me on English immigration policy haven't they got anything better to do!

Did you ask them specifically, or did you just shout into the wind here on this website?

ronmcd wrote:[...] Not sure it needs to take decades, the SNP were literally a joke in the view of many voters even after devolution. The speed with which SNP became electable was incredible. Labour's fall from grace in Scotland happened over a long time, but the move to SNP en masse almost, happened between 2007 and 2011. And in the middle, Labour had a creditable win in the 2010 election in Scotland.

I still think the fast swing from Labour to SNP in Scotland was a tipping point after Blair and Iraq, and a tentative collective decision by around half the voters to give them a chance in 2007 because labour were SO. SO. SO. BAD. Both here and at Westminster. SNP only won that election by 1 seat more than Labour.

Then they showed they were competent, and whoosh .... labour gone.

Agree about the meteoric rise of the SNP, but it was achieved with a solid launchpad: they were comfortably the second party in the '99 and '03 Holyrood elections, and that was preceded by their '70s success with the "It's Scotland's Oil!" campaign. Forcing a devo referendum in '79 was some feat: if a Labour backbencher hadn't gone and shoved in the turnout clause ...

Course, it all went to ratshit with the '80s infighting & decision to bale from the Constitutional Convention: that iron party discipline's there with good reason!

The SDP could've done similar in England, but they diluted their brand with the Liberals merger, and the Con-Dems did exactly what it says.

Did you ask them specifically, or did you just shout into the wind here on this website?

Went to the SNP site and clicked contact us, and posted via their site

Hysterical. This morning we have various PLP people getting upset over Corbyn's newsnight interview, his calls for kinder gentler politics attacked as hypocrisy. Harriet Harman thinks being nice somehow drives a wedge between the PLP and the membership, or something. Another MP says Corbyn wanted to tell the MP's dad to speak to him and stop disagreeing with him, or something (corbyn says this is untrue), and Eagle claims Corbyn is stirring hostility against his critics. Whereas his critics are sweetness and light about Corbyn by comparison, presumably.

fucksake.

In other batshit labour idiot news, we have Muriel Gray, someone who hates the SNP *so* much, even she is blaming Corbyn for ... well, everything.

Well you've left Scotland behind. Now in the hands of single issue narcissists and Tory carpet baggers. Cheers mate.

https://twitter.com/ArtyBagger/status/7 ... 2271723520

Bizarro world has arrived.