Given the total anti scottish independence bias in the UK media, they’ve been very much talking up the demise of the SNP. The thing is that if you are pro-independence, there isn’t really an alternative. Labour has been a spent force in Scottish politics in the last ten years, even over the Tories. They’re actually 4th party in MPs (SNP: 48, Tory: 6, Lib: 4, Lab: 1), so the UK press is probably fantasizing the wins here, no matter how Sturgeon screwed up, and Yousaf went weird, the demographic is there.
Now if there was actually a centre-left independence party they’d probably clean up. SNP is not so much radical, but almost actively self-harming (prohibitionist on alcohol, that trans rights pitfall) and I know a number of independence voters who aren’t happy with what the party is wasting their time on, when better things could be sorted.
Tendentious. For example, the one about the pound falling 14% versus the dollar since 2010. True, but so have most currencies. The pound is currently worth the same in euros as it was at the 2010 election, for what it’s worth. A more significant fall in the value of the pound was in 2008. The real story is that the dollar has appreciated against other currencies, British or otherwise.
The Scottish independence movement has a positioning problem. The SNP is a broad church, with conservative members and socialist members and every other sort of member. How could it not be - independence is only loosely correlated to other political views. That makes it hard to govern*. But if it moved to a more focussed political position, it would lose a lot of support, weakening the struggle for independence. It’s a real problem for them.
as drafted, this meant, it is hard for the SNP to be the governing party at Holyrood, but equally it makes the SNP a difficult party for its leadership to manage.
We’re talking about different things - I was referring to vote share so could have been more clear about that. I did very clearly use the word “nationally” however!
Actually UKIP were third in 2015…
Of course LibDems share should be greater than the SNP because they run candidates across the UK. The SNP could win every constituency they compete for and they could not form a government (assuming they don’t start fielding candidates outside of Scotland). I didn’t talk about the SNP because someone asked about the LibDems.
However seats are clearly more important than share so the SNP are certainly the more important party. It’s looking like it’s close to neck and neck between Labour and SNP in Scotland, though not sure how that’ll translate to seats. LibDems are polling fourth
I find this interesting given the position of labour in recent years in Scotland, they really were as relevant as the greens in the FPTP system, basically the SNP beat them in places they would have won. A lot of the media is predicting exactly that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the libdems took the seats instead, Scottish labour (from what my friends say) seem to be very good at shooting themselves in the foot then sticking that foot in their mouth.
This is obviously just symbolic pageantry, but it’s pretty important pageantry, and it would have been such an easy mistake to avoid. Is he trying to tank the party?
It is an astonishing mistake to make and if Labour can win the argument that he lied or misled about their £2000 tax rise (which he seems to have done) that would also be a big blow to him because it is reminiscent of Boris Johnson’s red bus in the Brexit campaign.
Recent opinion polls have Reform as the third largest party (by national share) and they are not far behind the Tories. If even one poll shows Reform in second, you can expect to see massive panic in the ranks of the Conservatives.
It’s incredible. Beyond that, it’s inconceivable. And I do know what that word means, and in this case it really is impossible to even imagine how he could possibly have thought this was the smart thing to do.
The baseline for “PM in the middle of election campaign cuts short D-Day celebrations where he would be photographed and filmed looking dignified, representing Britain, displaying true patriotism and sharing a stage with world leaders” is: holy fuck that’s a bad idea.
Rishi is specifically running a campaign targeted at pensioners (i.e. teh people who were either there or had family there or lost family there), built around notions of patriotism and a return to old-fashined values. Last week he was calling for the return of national service! D-Day commemorations are tailor made for his very specific audience, he had free TV exposure to exactly teh people he is trying to reach, doing exactly the sort of thing they value and respect and he fucked off.
And he fucked off to give an interview explaining how he’s technically not a liar if you squint a bit. An interview that wasn’t even live, or broadcast the same day! It’s not coming out for days. He could have done it at any time.
He was appointed to Chancellor because he was regarded as an easily manipulated nerd who completely lacked political instincts. I admit that when he became PM I felt free to doubt that analysis, but no! He is exactly that, and the fact that he got PM at the second time of asking only when Truss fucked things so badly that no-one could be allowed to run against him is a pure fluke and also the worst thing that ever happened to him.
Churchill was leading a national governemnt in WWII, and lost the 1945 election.
The last major landslide was Blair in 1997, which ended with a 167 seat majority, most of which was held on to in 2001 (159). Thatcher got a 144 majority in 1983.
While it’s clear that Sunak is in fact completely shit at politics in a way that beggars belief, there is also a uncomfortable element here that goes:
Under the Conservative’s first leader of colour/the UK’s first PM of colour, long-time Tory voters are flocking to the far right party led by a notorious racist, is this a co-incidence.
And, again, Sunak is fucking this up in ways that defy belief but also… probably not entirely?
Not sure what you mean by one-sided? Churchill’s wartime cabinet was a coalition of the three main parties, comprising all but a handful of MPs, but a succession of Labour members acted as Leader of the Opposition, at least nominally, and members asked awkward questions and raised complaints in the usual way.
Since 1945 there has only been one genuinely coalition government of more than one party (2010-2015), but several with substantial majorities sufficient to push through whatever they wanted. The convention is that they’re entitled to get through whatever was in their manifesto at the election that put them into power, but the opposition has mechanisms to criticise and propose amendments.
I do. Very much so. Sunak only got forced on the tory voters, after that the Truss disaster and they could take no more chances.
The tories have been using people of colour to allow themselves of the shortcut of being allowed to be racist, and to say things that the white MPs couldn’t. They are not clever POC (indeed actively opposite) but it is definitely a thing, with Patel, Braverman, Badenoch, Kwarteng as well as Sunak, but the racism of the far right party which is the tories now, is still there. They serve their purpose, but none of those would win a leadership election if put up against a white candidate
Sunak also suffers from going to the polls leading a party who actively hate him because of his colour. POC are useful in the other positions, but they will bever ever be “ONE OF US”.
I don’t know if I’m late to the party with this thought, but: I’ve noted upthread how the antics of the Tory party have alienated young people to the point that virtually none of them will vote Tory – and that was the case even before the Conscription fiasco. And yes, the legacy of this may be a generation of voters who largely hate them and will never vote for them. So: logically, how do you get to the point where you would be willing to (maybe) put yourself out of the game for the foreseeable future?
Possible answer: it’s OK to hock the future; the important thing is the immediate problem of beating Reform. If that puts you in second place for a generation, that would still be much preferable to being replaced by Reform. Therefore, the Tory strategy makes sense.
Anyone got an alternative logical explanation? (Serious question.)
Well, I agree with you. They are clearly not playing 4D chess here (or if they are, this is the most bold sacrificial combination of all time), so it’s as simple as:
Tory support is well correlated with age. National subscription is something they thought old people would cheer on, and they don’t particularly care if the young like it or not.
They needed something for people to talk about that isn’t their record. Which was largely the point of “stop the boats” but they’ve made even that an embarrassment.
In the British system, are there any formal privileges granted to the 2nd most popular party? If the Tories get 61 seats to the Lib Dems 62 vs the other way around, does that actually change anything or would it be a purely symbolic humiliation?
