Current Affairs The General Election

[Barry Rathbone]

I think the viability of that referendum result when the vow that was promised (and ultimately swung the election) was ignored and Scotland elected 90% of it's MP's for a party that is inherently pro independence. Politics moves on and there are about 4 key events that have made what happened in 2014 now completely irrelevant.

I mean, if we really believe in democracy, we would not be supporting a country coming out of the EU when every constituency voted to remain. It's the biggest affront to democracy in post war Britain.

I respect your view but completely disagree because of the multi faceted reasoning behind the SNP vote. In addition their parliamentary seat increase is not reflected in an increased share of the vote among the population it remains at 45%. It was 45% during the referendum, the status quo rules

 

[roydo]

It's a fair point. I understand it too. I wanted Labour to win but desperately didn't want another referenda!

Do you worry that we are now going to get further bogged down on the melodrama of the Tory politics of brinksmanship with itself, and an extremely lengthy next phase? And alongside that, were you not at all tempted by the Lib Dems proposal to revoke?

I find it interesting really that it just didn't seem to cut through at all amongst voters, when to me it perhaps seems the easiest way to resolve the issue.

I was not tempted by the Lib Dems at all. I voted remain, but that ship has sailed, for good or bad, so I wanted something to actually start. As for the future progress, I honestly have not got a clue how it will pan out. On the internal Tory issues, I think the majority Johnson has will consign the far right loons back to the bin they seem happy to be in.

Its a piss poor reason to vote for someone, I get that, but its the only rational I could come up with when face with the names on the ballot paper.

 

[roydo]

Well of course, but thats a frankly quite odd argument as nobody was assuming either elections were actual referendums.

The Tories, and indeed the Leave vote across the board was lower than the remain vote in 2019, but we all know it was a big vote to leave the EU.

The SNP now have 3 mandates that are far more comprehensive than what the Tories have achieved in 2019. That is an overwhelming mandate to have another vote. Whatever one's view is of how the vote should go, these are ore points of order than opinions.

I mean just to add in, David Cameron won less seats than the SNP have managed proportionately yet we still had the Brexit vote in 2016. Thats how politics works. He got nowhere near 50% of the vote.

Thats a fair point. Well, points.

 

[catcherintherye]

I respect your view but completely disagree because of the multi faceted reasoning behind the SNP vote. In addition their parliamentary seat increase is not reflected in an increased share of the vote among the population it remains at 45%. It was 45% during the referendum, the status quo rules

If it's 45% in a referendum they lose. However lots of Lab voters support independence, so might sections of Lib Dems.

In an election, each party puts positions. You don't need 50% to win. The SNP have won most seats in 3 consecutive elections, have won far more seats in each of them than the tories managed in 2015 on the Brexit referendum. You also have to factor in, the Tories in Scotland ran an explicitly anti-referendum pledge, and they lost seats to the SNP.

It's an overwhelming mandate for another referendum. In fact I would say it's the most clear case for a mandate I can remember in my political memory. I can't think of another party that has won as clearly in their country on 3 separate occasions as the SNP. Never mind where one issue dominates.

I'd add a final line too. If they lose the next referendum, and stand on a platform of an independence vote in the next election, and win the most seats, they should have another vote if they wish. Keep repeating until they get out if they want too (or people stop voting them as the majority).

 

[catcherintherye]

I was not tempted by the Lib Dems at all. I voted remain, but that ship has sailed, for good or bad, so I wanted something to actually start. As for the future progress, I honestly have not got a clue how it will pan out. On the internal Tory issues, I think the majority Johnson has will consign the far right loons back to the bin they seem happy to be in.

Its a piss poor reason to vote for someone, I get that, but its the only rational I could come up with when face with the names on the ballot paper.

No fair enough, I find it interesting to see the rational, so it's not meant as a dig. Would your view change of Johnson at all if he started allowing the ERG nutters to start running wild again? (Looking back I think this was Theresa May's big mistake).

 

[roydo]

No fair enough, I find it interesting to see the rational, so it's not meant as a dig. Would your view change of Johnson at all if he started allowing the ERG nutters to start running wild again? (Looking back I think this was Theresa May's big mistake).

I dont really have a view on Johnson, as in Pro or Anti. (On balance, bit of a tit) And I dont think the ERG have anywhere near the influence they had now. Ditto, the DUP. If Corbyn, who I cant stand, had a coherent Brexit policy, and I thought he had a chance of forming a strong enough Government to deliver it, I would have backed him.

He didnt, so I couldnt.

 

[catcherintherye]

I dont really have a view on Johnson, as in Pro or Anti. (On balance, bit of a tit) And I dont think the ERG have anywhere near the influence they had now. Ditto, the DUP. If Corbyn, who I cant stand, had a coherent Brexit policy, and I thought he had a chance of forming a strong enough Government to deliver it, I would have backed him.

He didnt, so I couldnt.

Yes interesting points. Just a couple more points, what is it you couldn't stand re Corbyn, especially compared to Johnson? It's difficult for me as I ideologically agree with Corbyn, but aside from that I've always felt him to come across as genuine and likeable, so it puzzles me how I'm so out of step.

More broadly the way I see it is there were a duality of mistakes made by Labour, around both Brexit and it's (our) manifesto. On Brexit I agree with you, we completely misjudged just how many people just wanted Brexit resolved. Just because people say they would vote remain, doesn't mean they want another referendum. This is sort of the weakness of statistics and quant data. You don't get any of the wider context and value to the questions and things can be twisted.

That was the real trap we fell into regards the Tories. 17.4 million voted leave, 0.6 million voted BXP. That left 16.8 million for the tories to work from (not withstanding they held some remains support too). We just didn't contest that arena well enough. It was an open goal.

The other thing I think we lost re Johnson, was completely misjudging what the real threat was. The real threat was never the No Deal. It was him getting a deal. The blunt truth is, a No deal, and the wider carnage it would bring would decimate the Tories. Hence why, despite threats they've never seriously pursued it. They've given Ireland up before that.

That was a massive win for Johnson, getting a deal. Holding his party together was another, and Labour delaying calling an election to guarantee no deal was gone was a 3rd. I raised concerns at the time, that these victories were significant.

I think it really sured up remain Tory votes.The reality is, 60% of the population aren't too bothered either way and want a sensible deal. You have headbangers on both sides and all the while the Tories were pitching to the headbangers on the leave side, they were ignoring that majority in the middle (ignored by the media).

As for the manifesto, we learnt all the wrong lessons from 2017. Front and centre in 2017 was the idea of who was going to pay for the public spending, and this had been a long process from 2016. We had done the ground work. Then with spending, it was targeted on a handful of specific things, so again seemed feasible.

The conclusion that we had won the argument on economic credibility and nailed it down was much too ambitious. We haven't laid much groundwork over the intervening years and the idea of how things are paid for was far less of a priority in 2019 (It was there, but in a far more complex way).

The policy announcements mid election did little to help us. We also have to understand (much like remain) just because people like things in an abstract poll, what it doesn't ask you, is do you like all of these thing collectively together, and do you think nationalisation should be a priority. A bit like the Remain point above, there are limitations to the data.

It's always bit saddening when people vote for that lot, but to me when they do I always think we have to accept the responsibility for that. For not explaining things well enough, or not having the right ideas to begin with etc.

Without prying too much, you seem a swing voter so it would be interesting what if anything Labour could do to win your support, if they ever had it to begin with?

 

[Barry Rathbone]

If it's 45% in a referendum they lose. However lots of Lab voters support independence, so might sections of Lib Dems.

In an election, each party puts positions. You don't need 50% to win. The SNP have won most seats in 3 consecutive elections, have won far more seats in each of them than the tories managed in 2015 on the Brexit referendum. You also have to factor in, the Tories in Scotland ran an explicitly anti-referendum pledge, and they lost seats to the SNP.

It's an overwhelming mandate for another referendum. In fact I would say it's the most clear case for a mandate I can remember in my political memory. I can't think of another party that has won as clearly in their country on 3 separate occasions as the SNP. Never mind where one issue dominates.

I'd add a final line too. If they lose the next referendum, and stand on a platform of an independence vote in the next election, and win the most seats, they should have another vote if they wish. Keep repeating until they get out if they want too (or people stop voting them as the majority).

It is only that if the definitive reason that voters put a cross against the SNP candidate was to vote for a referendum clearly that was not the case.

This was accepted by Sturgeon raising the point in a speech a couple of days ago I suspect going public with this concession was an effort to placate those voters voting SNP but not necessarily wanting to leave the union presumably her triumphalism led to emails and letters calling her out for misrepresentation.

If the SNP wanted the general election result to be a mandate for another referendum they should have made it front and centre of their campaign - they didn't - the fact the tories lost on a counter proposal is incidental they would have lost even if offering voters £50 each for voting.

 

[catcherintherye]

It is only that if the definitive reason that voters put a cross against the SNP candidate was to vote for a referendum clearly that was not the case.

This was accepted by Sturgeon raising the point in a speech a couple of days ago I suspect going public with this concession was an effort to placate those voters voting SNP but not necessarily wanting to leave the union presumably her triumphalism led to emails and letters calling her out for misrepresentation.

If the SNP wanted the general election result to be a mandate for another referendum they should have made it front and centre of their campaign - they didn't - the fact the tories lost on a counter proposal is incidental they would have lost even if offering voters £50 each for voting.

The SNP's manifesto said they would have a 2nd referendum. It can't be more explicit than that mate.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

The SNP's manifesto said they would have a 2nd referendum. It can't be more explicit than that mate.

You're not disagreeing with Sturgeon conceding that not all their votes were supportive of a referendum, surely?

 

[roydo]

what is it you couldn't stand re Corbyn

Probably more his Chancellor if I am honest. The policy of nicking 10% of folks shares appalled me.

At heart I am probably conservative, with a small C. The thought of state owned internet, free to all, is just plain nonsense. And more than a bit frightening. Its difficult to verbalise it really, but in a nutshell, I loath the extremes of any party. (and yeah, I now, some will say he isnt extreme), but to me he is little more than a protest politician, incapable of making a decision on anything other than his pet subjects.

And if I did vote for him, I would be supporting his ridiculous Brexit stance, which I dont.

I am sure he is a nice bloke. So am I, but trust me, you dont want me making any important decisions of national importance. Trust me to deliver your parcel on time and in one piece, (usually), then Vote Roydo.

 

[Aberblue]

You're not disagreeing with Sturgeon conceding that not all their votes were supportive of a referendum, surely?

Actually, what she said was that she accepted that not all her voters necessarily wanted independence, but that the SNP's victory showed that they wanted a referendum.

 

[summerisle]

It's a bit late now.