The Political Thread

[CalHab]

I was thinking about this the other day. It does seem we're basically fucked unless:

- Labour recognises the need to work with others, stands down in key marginals, and promises PR
- Lib Dems recognise they are a second-tier party, have the means to perhaps win 30 seats at the next GE, stop being pricks in Scotland to the bafflement of English Lib Dems, stand down in all Con/Lab marginals, and perhaps also realise the SW is not 'their' territory anymore
- Greens recognise the need to basically stand down everywhere bar Brighton Pav (assuming it still exists in 2024) and IOW, and obliterate their finances from 2024–29, for the promise of 20+ MPs in 2024
- SNP put on hold indy2 and work with other parties for a more accountable, representative and probably devolved state-based UK that will rapidly recreate ties with Europe (~EEA, but not EU membership)

So, yeah, Con majority in 2024, then, albeit probably on a smaller plurality — (~35–40% vote share, and 10–30-seat majority, while Starmer and co. still play down the need for PR, the Libs/SNP kick the shit out of each other in Scotland, Lab/Lib do the same in England, and the Greens act baffled when people get angry with them for running high-profile candidates in Labour-winnable seats) — unless things change in a big way, or enough people in England recognise what a massive shitshow the Tories are and decamp to Lab/Lib en masse.

Interesting post, but your analysis of Scotland is askew.

The SNP would have bitten your hand off for a federalised UK back in 2014. I remember being amazed that Cameron didn't offer a third option on the ballot, before I realised that no England-based politician had a clue about what was happening on the ground in Scotland and the sense of isolation from Westminster. The infamous "pledge" by unionist politicians, which was torn up in a matter of hours post-ref, will now mean this is an hard thing to sell to even soft indy-types. However it won't be offered, because Scottish Labour currently have only one consistent policy- unionism. Starmer would basically have to shut down the Scottish party to get something like that through (which is possibly not the worst plan).

The Lib Dems are nowhere in Scotland (4 seats in Westminster out of 59)- it's a straight SNP-Con battle and it's basically framed on constitutional lines. Labour and the Lib Dems are an irrelevance and will be for the next electoral cycle at least.

[sheridan]

Having said that, try to filter out the Daily mail, because half their headlines alone make ye feel like a pervy wab.

zoology. the interdigital skin web on certain animals. 2. zoology. the set of barbs on the shaft of a bird's feather.

[IndigoPrime]

CalHab: I'm not saying what the SNP would do, nor what I think it should do. I'm stating what would need to happen to avoid another Conservative majority. And even if the SNP took most Scottish seats and Labour did something beyond any party in history in terms of flipping English seats, we could end up with no viable government, if the SNP sticks to its guns—as it has every right to do—and tells the English to get fucked (or demands something they know will not be agreed in return for supply/confidence).

Given that Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to fully understand that by digging their heels in, they're stoking the fire, and so one of those things is very likely to happen. (Although one is also an SNP loss, unless they fancy doing a referendum against the national government, thereby triggering a full-on constitutional crisis.) This is all especially stupid from a Lib Dem standpoint, given that the party has long advocated for... devolved regions and a federal UK. But there you go. The Lib Dems aren't a remotely smart party at the top table these days. (As for Labour's position, that shifts and changes. I still can't get a handle on Starmer for key issues surrounding devolution and PR.)

I'm aware the Lib Dems are not a power in Scotland, but they are a spoiler—and arguably beyond the degree the Greens are in England. So you end up in a situation where the SNP could just do a pact with the Lib Dems (where they leave each other alone) and keep their existing seats, or where they kick the shit out of each other, the SNP flip a couple—perhaps all—Lib seats, but the Tories then grab some SNP seats. That result doesn't really benefit anyone apart from Scots who (in many cases entirely rightly and fairly) dislike the Lib Dems. But for a broader picture of 2024, we really need some kind of 'leave the incumbents alone' if said seat is held by a Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid or Green. Naturally, there's almost no chance that will happen.

And that's all just thinking about the SNP. Imagine trying to convince the English Greens to stand down basically everywhere, when there's little top-down leadership and local parties can do whatever they like. We're just going to get a load of Strouds.

[TordelBack]

"You are the courageous warriors standing in the way of what they want to do and their goals. They hate our history. They hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans."

Goebbels' speechwriting guidelines getting quite a workout this week.

[CalHab]

CalHab: I'm not saying what the SNP would do, nor what I think it should do. I'm stating what would need to happen to avoid another Conservative majority. And even if the SNP took most Scottish seats and Labour did something beyond any party in history in terms of flipping English seats, we could end up with no viable government, if the SNP sticks to its guns—as it has every right to do—and tells the English to get fucked (or demands something they know will not be agreed in return for supply/confidence).

Given that Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to fully understand that by digging their heels in, they're stoking the fire, and so one of those things is very likely to happen. (Although one is also an SNP loss, unless they fancy doing a referendum against the national government, thereby triggering a full-on constitutional crisis.) This is all especially stupid from a Lib Dem standpoint, given that the party has long advocated for... devolved regions and a federal UK. But there you go. The Lib Dems aren't a remotely smart party at the top table these days. (As for Labour's position, that shifts and changes. I still can't get a handle on Starmer for key issues surrounding devolution and PR.)

I'm aware the Lib Dems are not a power in Scotland, but they are a spoiler—and arguably beyond the degree the Greens are in England. So you end up in a situation where the SNP could just do a pact with the Lib Dems (where they leave each other alone) and keep their existing seats, or where they kick the shit out of each other, the SNP flip a couple—perhaps all—Lib seats, but the Tories then grab some SNP seats. That result doesn't really benefit anyone apart from Scots who (in many cases entirely rightly and fairly) dislike the Lib Dems. But for a broader picture of 2024, we really need some kind of 'leave the incumbents alone' if said seat is held by a Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid or Green. Naturally, there's almost no chance that will happen.

And that's all just thinking about the SNP. Imagine trying to convince the English Greens to stand down basically everywhere, when there's little top-down leadership and local parties can do whatever they like. We're just going to get a load of Strouds.

I think you overstate the difficulty Scotland presents to a future non-Con government.

The SNP hold 48 of 59 seats in Scotland. The main opposition party is toxic to an increasing part of the electorate, so I don't see that changing in the near future.

The SNP will do a deal with Labour, and have promised so in the past, if they are promised a referendum. If I was Starmer, I would ignore his Scottish party (who are largely inept) and do a deal including a third option on the ballot for federalisation, which is currently the only feasible path that would assist Labour getting into power and keep the Union intact. I think the Lib Dems can safely be ignored in Scotland for the next electoral cycle. I doubt many Scots could name any LD politicians.

[TordelBack]

Today in Expressworld,  Ireland is likely leaving the EU as the next 'Brexit domino'. Part of the evidence offered for this surprising revelation is that we held referendums on European treaties when no-one else did (we've had 6, not counting the 2 re-runs). Never mind that our constitution requires it, it's really because we're bolshie.

Not included in the article for some reason is the latest Red C poll (possibly they don't do those in Expressworld?) which shows 84% support for EU membership, which is actually lower than usual (around 90%) mainly because folk didn't think the EU acted strongly enough on Covid-19 health measures. That's right, EU approval is down because of their lack of interference in national competencies .

It's the little differences that make this parallel universe so fascinating.

[IndigoPrime]

To be fair, one of the major poles of Bonkersville Brexit was Brexit being amazing > Ireland getting jealous > Irext > Ireland rejoins the UK, because that's how things should be > some kind of party, where Nigel Farage is made king and PM all in one > EU bursts into flames and is also shot into space

Or something.

[JayzusB.Christ]

No freedom of movement!  Needing a visa to have a sun holiday! No trade deals! Even more racism and xenophobia!  Unpicked fruit! Dependency on Trump's America!  Chlorinated chicken*! Sounds awesome - where do I sign up?

*The bendy banana law of the remoaners.  Except it's real.

[IndigoPrime]

It's an excellent example of people doubling down on a terrible decision, and convincing themselves they voted for something when they didn't. Brexit was promised as an easy-to-deliver solution to a (n imaginary) problem, with only upsides, and no loss of benefits. Little by little, it's trended towards the worst possible Brexit, to the point the country will have an internal trade border and/or a literally open import border but gated exports. This would be satirical and extremely funny if it wasn't real life, and lots of us didn't live here.

[JayzusB.Christ]

It's an excellent example of people doubling down on a terrible decision, and convincing themselves they voted for something when they didn't. Brexit was promised as an easy-to-deliver solution to a (n imaginary) problem, with only upsides, and no loss of benefits. Little by little, it's trended towards the worst possible Brexit, to the point the country will have an internal trade border and/or a literally open import border but gated exports. This would be satirical and extremely funny if it wasn't real life, and lots of us didn't live here.

Some of those of us who don't live there aren't going to do too well out of it either. 

[IndigoPrime]

Point.

[Tjm86]

... where Nigel Farage is made king and PM all in one ...

This would be the same Nigel Farage who has done a runner to America then?

Which raises the curious matter of one of the more peculiar aspects of Brexit ... the number of anti-EU campaigners / political types who appear to be actively seeking citizenship in an EU country.  Alexander Johnson's father being the latest example.

It's also becoming increasingly apparent why Johnson has been so keen this week to trumpet 'lockdown easing' moves.  Evidence of Jenrick's role in Desmond's London development planning decision appears to be increasing.

So now in addition to having sat with him at a fundraiser, spent several minutes watching a video Desmond wanted him to see (I would be generous about the video having nothing to do with the development here since we are talking about Desmond but not sure how much that helps him), we now learn that

• Jenrick / Desmond exchanged texts about the development in which Desmond explicity states that he wants to avoid the payment to the local authority (legal? well it would not have been breaking the law if he had started work before the date but seeking to influence the decision ... , ethical ...),
• department officials circulated emails citing Jenrick's concerns about the development and
• payments to the Tory party from Desmond ...

Not a problem though because the Prime Minister "considers the matter closed."

It is becoming increasingly apparent that significant lockdown changes, increased appearances of the Prime Minister and embarrassing revelations about Ministers / select SPADs are closely correlated.  Is this tin-foil-hattery?

[Aaron A Aardvark]

They're pretty openly corrupt. Conspiracies usually involve at least a little bit of secrecy.

[IndigoPrime]

Which raises the curious matter of one of the more peculiar aspects of Brexit ... the number of anti-EU campaigners / political types who appear to be actively seeking citizenship in an EU country.

Nothing peculiar about that. Brexit in part was always about the proles knowing their place. The rich have always been allowed to do what they want, by buying their way in. They just don't want everyone else to have the same — or at least want to secure their own freedoms. It's disgusting, obviously; but it also showcases yet again how literally millions voted against their own best interests, while the rich do whatever the hell they like.

As for Jenrick, it's just further confirmation that this government has no interest in accountability. Until a change of leading party, we need to make peace with having an openly corrupt government, and do whatever we can to fight that.

[Jim_Campbell]

As for Jenrick[...]

Ahhh... my MP. Amusingly, he replaced Patrick Mercer, who was forced to resign as an MP having been caught out shamelessly taking a bung and, on on his departure, sent his constituents one of the most ill-tempered and unapologetic 'apology' letters I've ever seen.