Question Time -what did we learn?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 subtle 22 Nov 2019

Ok, the four leaders of the biggest parties being questioned by a studio audience - what did you think?

 Robert Durran 22 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

> Ok, the four leaders of the biggest parties being questioned by a studio audience - what did you think?

That probably a lot of people in England (and indeed Scotland) wish that Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of a credible UK wide opposition.

25
 Wainers44 22 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

> Ok, the four leaders of the biggest parties being questioned by a studio audience - what did you think?

Sadly that "the world's greatest railway journeys" on the other channel was more informative, believable, and a whole lot more relevant to what I can influence than what they said. 

Yes, that does make me a bad person. 

2
 Dr.S at work 22 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

corbyn did surprisingly well

sturgeon capable as always

swinson hammered - even though I thought she generally gave fair answers

Boris - tw*t.

so probably not much

Post edited at 23:23
7
 toad 22 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

I watched a young girl find out that her real mother was the agent of an evil monolithic authoritarian body that was dedicated to ripping the souls from children in a hostile frozen waste. 

Pretty uplifting Sunday night family drama by comparison

 birdie num num 23 Nov 2019
In reply to toad:

I reckon Jeremy Corbyn’s daemon is a cuckoo.

4
Lusk 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

What did we learn?

> Boris - tw*t.

That's just a confirmation.

I'm struggling to recall another person in my 59 years on this Earth who isn't more full of shit than him.

9
In reply to Lusk:

I think you meant is.

2
 summo 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That probably a lot of people in England (and indeed Scotland) wish that Fiona Bruce was the leader of a credible UK wide opposition.

FTFY

12
 Yanis Nayu 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

By far the most impressive. 

3
 wercat 23 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

that the BBC is quite open in giving the later speakers the advantage of knowing what the previous speakers said.   Thing is, were they cut off from their information researchers doing analysis and counterarguments while they heard their opponents case?

Didn't think much of FB

 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

> Didn't think much of FB

I didn't actually see the debate, but I think she has reduced Question Time to a bit of a joke.

1
 summo 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I didn't actually see the debate, but I think she has reduced Question Time to a bit of a joke.

Either of the Dimblebys are a near impossible act to follow. 

4
 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to toad:

> I watched a young girl find out that her real mother was the agent of an evil monolithic authoritarian body that was dedicated to ripping the souls from children in a hostile frozen waste. 

Some sort of extended metaphor for a Conservative majority government?

2
Removed User 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I didn't actually see the debate, but I think she has reduced Question Time to a bit of a joke.

I agree she doesn't have the objectivity or quickness of thinking required for a program like that. I've noticed her own views come through on several occasions.

 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> I agree she doesn't have the objectivity or quickness of thinking required for a program like that. I've noticed her own views come through on several occasions.


Not just that, but the way she tries to be "matey" with the audience is pretty excruciating.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> swinson hammered - even though I thought she generally gave fair answers

According to Twitter they stacked the audience according to # of MPs the party has in current parliament.  LibDems have hardly any so she'd even fewer supporters in audience than Nicola Sturgeon.   If the audience had been stacked according to current voting intention she'd have got more response from her revoke Article 50 line.

There were also far too many pseudo-LibDem 'I voted Remain but I think it is undemocratic to revoke Article 50' stooges selected by the Tories who choose QT audiences.  Like the people Scottish Tories are always meeting on trains who say 'I've voted SNP all my life but I'm voting Tory this time because I don't want an Independence Referendum.'

8
 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> According to Twitter......

Must be true then.

> ............the Tories who choose QT audiences. 

Evidence?

 Offwidth 23 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm amazed more people haven't said that. As parties and their main supporters in England go to the extremes, when facing a QT audience based on party supporters, and terrified of facing their own extremism, Swinson was always going to get a hammering. If the audience was full of swing voters, Boris and JC would have borne the brunt.  I think nearly all those tory seats in Scotland will go whomsoever the Scottish tories meet on trains.

1
 timjones 23 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

I thought it was depressing to observe the number of audience members that don't understand the difference between a question and their own opinion.

Post edited at 13:00
In reply to Robert Durran:

Google  Alison Fuller Pedley

There's been a few outcries about QT audiences.  They've found actors planted in them a couple of times, allegedly one yesterday as well.  When they had one in an SNP constituency in Scotland the whole audience was basically Tory and SNP activists started picking out the faces in it finding lots of Tory Councillors and ex MSPs.   BBC admitted that the audience was designed to represent the UK as a whole rather than the constituency the show was held in and that they did not block party activists.   Some of the guys asking questions yesterday were spotted as having been on QT more than once.

1
 Tringa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

One thing I found annoying about the programme was the combining of questions. When one bloke asked BJ about not publishing the report on Russian involvement it was combined with other questions/comments and Boris was able to dodge the first question easily.

Dave

1
In reply to subtle:

One thing we learned is how nakedly biased the UK media is against the SNP and Scottish Independence.

SKY's report on the leader's performances in the QT debate does not even mention that Sturgeon was there.  F*cking unbelievable.

https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-almost-half-of-voters-think-lea...

Post edited at 18:21
6
 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> BBC admitted that the audience was designed to represent the UK as a whole rather than the constituency the show was held in and that they did not block party activists.

Seems fair enough for a UK wide programme if it is a consistent policy.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Seems fair enough for a UK wide programme if it is a consistent policy.

Except that they go round the country and almost everybody watching it thinks its a sample of local voters.   It would be fair enough if they made a statement at the beginning of the program coming clean that their audience was full of local politicians, some of the people asking questions were actors and the demographics were not at all representative of the location they were broadcasting from.

1
 John2 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

'I didn't actually see the debate, but I think she has reduced Question Time to a bit of a joke'

1) If you didn't see the debate why did you say that you learned that a lot of people in England (and indeed Scotland) wish that Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of a credible UK wide opposition?

2) The most impressive performance from anyone in the debate was Fiona Bruce shutting up a persistent questioner by saying, 'I'm in charge here'.

2
 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to John2:

> 'I didn't actually see the debate, but I think she has reduced Question Time to a bit of a joke'

I didn't see the debate. I was referring to the normal Thursday night Question Time which I do regularly watch (though it is often so poor now that I tend now to switch over to Newsnight which I think is really good at the moment).

> 1) If you didn't see the debate why did you say that you learned that a lot of people in England (and indeed Scotland) wish that Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of a credible UK wide opposition?

Obviously I didn't actually "learn" that. I said "probably" because I consider Sturgeon to be in a completely different league to the other three as a politician and so I was speculating that many people would be wishing she was providing the leadership in opposing Johnson and the Conservatives.

4
 John2 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Ah, speculating.

2
 john arran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Have you seen the latest accusation of BBC bias - that they deliberately cut out the audio of audience laughter from one of the questions Johnson was failing to give an answer to?

I know you're reluctant to acknowledge any BBC bias but the evidence against the Question Time production in particular is very convincing, even if more widely it's a lot weaker.

3
 MG 23 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

Everyone agrees it's biased against them. So it probably isn't. 

2
 john arran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

Is that relating to QT or to the BBC in general?

1
 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

> Everyone agrees it's biased against them. So it probably isn't. 

Undoubtedly some truth in that. The Mail and the Express both thought the leaders' debate was biased against Johnson:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1208143/bbc-question-time-jeremy-co...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7716685/BBC-faces-bias-row-Boris-J...

 Robert Durran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

> I know you're reluctant to acknowledge any BBC bias but the evidence against the Question Time production in particular is very convincing, even if more widely it's a lot weaker.

Although I've never watched Question Time and noticed any bias myself, I concede there might be something in that; I've just googled Alison Fuller Pedley as Tom suggested and it is a bit worrying.

I think the Question of anti SNP bias is a tricky one since Question Time, and UK wide programming in general, in aiming for a general UK wide audience are inevitably going to find it hard to please a partisan section of the audience confined, by its nature, to a particular relatively small part of the population

 Phil1919 23 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

I thought BJ was cringeworthy. No real intelligence behind his answers apart from promises to make it all better for most of the questions.

2
 MG 23 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

Both. 

I've never watched QT but I suspect from reports that if there is bias, it is towards loudmouth twitterable types, rather than politically. Ie it's entertainment not analysis. 

Lusk 23 Nov 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I think you meant is.


Hahaha, you're almost certainly correct, I shall bow down to the mighty Stainforths' knowledge of English grammar and syntax!

Has any one mentioned yet, the woman who asked him, "Will you say sorry for your comments about letter boxes etc.?"

Did he f*ck, just another stream of garbage and excuses. 

I have this little fantasy that Donald Tusk, in his retirement, will spill the beans about what he and all the European leaders reaqlly think about Johnson.  I suspect it won't be particulary endearing!

2
 balmybaldwin 23 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

What did we learn?

well the bbc costume department isn't what it once was.... and worse Fiona can't even be bothered to learn "man in a white Tshirt's" name:

https://twitter.com/RickBlagger/status/1198162879645732865

 FactorXXX 24 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

I've learnt, that if you're in a position of leadership and and are consequently expected to have a decisive opinion on something, then you can avoid the issue by simply declaring yourself a neutral observer. 
Genius! 

 

3
In reply to subtle:

Slightly off topic, there’s great entertainment on the political shows on radio 5.

There’s a little group of mainly Labour activists/politicians who when interviewed, studiously drop their ‘t’s and sometime ‘h’s and have an odd sub South Yorkshire twang. So it’s conserva ive and par y. However when they warm to their task, the ts and hs miraculously return when they’re not concentrating on it and there’s more than a hint of cut glass cotswolds or Home Counties. Does it really matter if Lab people aren’t either faux working class or northern?

 Offwidth 24 Nov 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

I think Corbyn has been a poor leader for Labour but as a centrist I see his position as honourable and honest on brexit. All the fuss about his position seems pretty Orwellian to me, for his loudest critics, truth and dishonesty is being flipped. His party are massively pro remain and the population are on a knife edge (and from ordinary brexit voting people I speak to, seem pretty ignorant about what's coming if Boris wins.. they have bought his spin)  but Corbyn still wants to honour the referendum result, as he always did. He has met Barnier and knows that a Labour brexit IS easy to negotiate as it's the soft brexit the EU can give. In contrast Boris with all his "getting brexit done" bluster is just a liar. In deal terms he could get brexit done by softening his party stance, but can't/won't and he knows that makes the negotiation almost impossible in the time and there is a very serious chance we will be back to the same NI issues facing a hard brexit in December 2020. I think Swinson has partly messed up as well... she could have said from the beginning we support a no brexit position but would accept a referendum in a minority government (the realistic and more honest position), she has annoyed some centrist democratic sticklers on this and taken flack from swing voters in the debates as a result.

3
 Offwidth 24 Nov 2019
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Given the Islington elite reputation of the party leadership I think genuine local representation is an issue in the north.

2
 neilh 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Lusk:

There was a BBC-interview with Juncker recently along those lines.

hate to say this but he likes BJ and does not think that Labours ideas on timescale are workable. 

I am sure he had a glint in his eye when he said this!

3
 neilh 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Need to bring Rayner and Philips on more. Tough and respected women. 

2
 Offwidth 24 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

I should imagine Junker and JC have little common political ground and the twinkle is because he knows full well he is being disingenuous because of that. Most likely forms of the variants on a customs union deal are all quickly workable with Labour, including a Norway or a Swiss model which would be 'off the shelf'. The big negotiation problems occur with a trade deal outside the customs union, as per the Boris Unicorn plan (the UK - including NI - being free to negotiate independent trade deals across the world and have a great trade deal with the EU). It's the biggest issue in the election and the position Boris takes is the completely incoherent one and yet JC takes most of the flak... much of British Industry and commerce will live to regret their simpering silence if Boris wins.

2
 MargieB 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I live in the Highlands. We had two years of independence debate whilst the economy was on hold.

Yes Nicola Sturgeon may be, to none Scottish viewers, different but that is your novelty value not mine in Scotland- 

For me in Scotland, after a weary 2 years of Referendum independence and 3 years referendum Brexit, a third way now presents itself in a Lib Dem manifesto- and that's attractive. Joe Swinson has been articulate in Parliament, measured and paced and clear thinking. Let us not forget the real evidence is in these past Parliamentary experiences and what we may get in the next Parliamentary experiences. That should firmly inform our judgements now, not a single TV debate.

6
 neilh 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

The Swiss and Norway models are not right for the Uk, especially as the Uk has more clout. It’s not just a trade deal it’s a lot  more than that. so I doubt realistically it will take 6 months( crikey does anybody really know Labours position on immigration for example).one thing we should all know is that these timescales get stretched. 

1
 Offwidth 24 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

It's an irrelevant argument as the custom union deals are available, are much easier to negotiate than  Boris's and most important of all, the referendum result will be remain as the hard brexit crew will hate it. 

1
 MargieB 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

We are not starting again with Brexit- we have had 3 years, and now see "Leave" has largely consolidated into a hard definition which retains it's attractiveness to most leave voters. Corbyn is appealing to a very narrow market as regards Leave. After 3 years debate one has reached the crunch decision- hard brexit or remain in EU and reform within EU in years to come.

Boris is relying on our short term memories and the  tactic of  distraction by running a GE.

Post edited at 13:27
1
In reply to Offwidth:

> I think Corbyn has been a poor leader for Labour but as a centrist I see his position as honourable and honest on brexit.

Two questions:

1.  If Labour won't define their position on Brexit and want to leave it to a referendum why don't they have two separate economic plans?  There's no way the same assumptions apply for a Remain and a Leave scenario.

2. If Corbyn won't state his position on Remain vs Leave how do we know which way he will go if - as is extremely likely - his preferred scenario of a Labour government with a working majority does not transpire.  If there was a minority Tory government would he whip Labour MPs to block Boris's Brexit plans?

2
 MargieB 24 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

absolutely!

1
Removed User 24 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I live in the Highlands. We had two years of independence debate whilst the economy was on hold.

> Yes Nicola Sturgeon may be, to none Scottish viewers, different but that is your novelty value not mine in Scotland- 

> For me in Scotland, after a weary 2 years of Referendum independence and 3 years referendum Brexit, a third way now presents itself in a Lib Dem manifesto- and that's attractive. Joe Swinson has been articulate in Parliament, measured and paced and clear thinking. Let us not forget the real evidence is in these past Parliamentary experiences and what we may get in the next Parliamentary experiences. That should firmly inform our judgements now, not a single TV debate.

Quite, I am always dismayed that the electorate prefer to choose who they will vote for based on a who can "talk a good game" that is broadly in line with their ideology rather than vote for the representative who has achieved the most. Nicola Sturgeon is a prime example, her government have achieved next to nothing in the Scottish parliament, have not met their stated aspirations in education and child poverty for example ("judge me on my record", sadly not) while their flagship policies have quietly failed (named person, education reform). And yet I repeatedly hear that Sturgeon is a "good politician"!

Paradoxically people will assert at the drop of a hat that politicians are all talk and no trousers, that they can never be trusted. Of course not! If ineffectual bullshitters are continually elected to office then what does anyone expect?

5
 Robert Durran 24 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I live in the Highlands. We had two years of independence debate whilst the economy was on hold.

> Yes Nicola Sturgeon may be, to none Scottish viewers, different but that is your novelty value not mine in Scotland- 

I live in Scotland too, and, although I might describe myself as "indy-curious" I am not really an SNP supporter (though I shall be voting tactically for them). What I was meaning was that I wish Labour had a centre left leader of Sturgeon's calibre to wipe the floor with the Tories.

 neilh 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

But we both know it’s a wider argument than that embracing a whole range of subjects. To narrow it down to a trade deal does not address wider issues. It implies resolution of complex issues like fishing rights , immigration , data information , CE marking and so on. 

You are looking for a quick fix. The protracted negotiations to date no matter what suggest this is just not easy. 

 summo 24 Nov 2019
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

>  Does it really matter if Lab people aren’t either faux working class or northern?

Worked for Wilson, champagne socialist with a northern accent. 

3
 jimtitt 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> I should imagine Junker and JC have little common political ground and the twinkle is because he knows full well he is being disingenuous because of that.

I'd think the twinkle in his eye is because any negotiations will be with Ursula von der Leyen and the Boris Bullshit will stop there.

Post edited at 16:56
Removed User 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I live in Scotland too, and, although I might describe myself as "indy-curious" I am not really an SNP supporter (though I shall be voting tactically for them). What I was meaning was that I wish Labour had a centre left leader of Sturgeon's calibre to wipe the floor with the Tories.

See my recent post above. 

 summo 24 Nov 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

> I'd think the twinkle in his eye is because any negotiations will be with Ursula von der Leyen and the Boris Bullshit will stop there.

You can't bullshit a bullshitter? 

2
 jimtitt 24 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

?

 summo 24 Nov 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

> ?

Just an expansion of the phrase you can't kid and kider.  

 HansStuttgart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> The Swiss and Norway models are not right for the Uk, especially as the Uk has more clout. It’s not just a trade deal it’s a lot  more than that. so I doubt realistically it will take 6 months( crikey does anybody really know Labours position on immigration for example).one thing we should all know is that these timescales get stretched. 


The only thing LAB will get in their 3-6 month period is a rewriting of the non-binding political declaration of the future relationship in which the EU will politely agree that an economically close relationship is possible and that all efforts will be made to work towards that goal.

And then after the WA has been agreed, the EU will make clear in the second phase of the negotiations what it expects the UK to commit to in terms of money and direct incorporation of legislation and ECJ oversight. And then UK-gov won't be happy.

The main problem with the Norway/Switzerland models is not the larger clout of the UK (this gets negated by the clout of the EU which is much larger and the fact that the EU can use a series of deadlines after which the UK's economy crashes unless it agrees with EU proposals against the UK.), but that the EU does not like those models for the UK. The two main reasons are a lack of trust in the UK government compared to Norway and Switzerland and especially because the UK is a much bigger economy. Norway does not abuse the grey areas in the EEA treaty that much and even if they would, their economy is so small that it cannot affect the EU market that much. But the UK is different, especially because London is by far the largest financial center in the EU market. EU won't allow those banks (and the rest of the UK) to be able to operate in the EU market while the UK government has freedom to be creative with EU regulations. So the model for the UK will be much tighter than the Norway model.

Post edited at 19:38
 Offwidth 24 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

No I'm not understating any complexity. If a Labour minority government is elected, Stage 1, getting an outline deal agreed with the EU is easier for Labour than Boris (who negotiated a more complex outline deal in weeks). Stage 2 is the minority government agree a new referendum with remain versus the Labour outline deal. Stage 3 is either remain (so easy) or in the unlikely event that leave wins, the Labour deal will be tricky to negotiate, depending on complexity, but far less so than Boris's. I see Corbyn as honest in declaring his position (despite wishing Labour had a better leader) and Boris as thoroughly dishonest: as any deal he wants is far from what the EU would grant and is in any case hugely complex, so almost impossible in the time, even if the EU backed down.... so either his deadline is another massive lie (likely) or we are heading for no deal (also likely). If Boris wins, brexit negotiations will dominate UK politics for 2020 in an even more fevered way than it has up to now (political mayhem and important companies will close or move).  Tory voters will have been conned in almost every scenario on brexit with a Boris win. This is what the people of the UK need to be told. Boris is telling porkies (again) when he says he will easily get brexit done with an EU deal, and in doing so is threatening our future economic health and our social compact (including the NHS) as a country. 

Post edited at 23:54
1
 FactorXXX 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Paragraphs!
 

1
 neilh 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

All that means is that the existing deal is just about perfect. I am not sure but if Labour won they would hardly want to ride on the back of a May/ Johnson deal.  It does not make political sense to do that. 

IMHO

3
In reply to neilh:

> All that means is that the existing deal is just about perfect.

!!!!

You're kidding, right?

1
 MargieB 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I slightly question your approach to tactical voting in Scotland .  Remain parties are likely to win here  unless you are in an unusual  Conservatively minded, knife- edge,  constituency. Here in Inverness all major parties are running  and all of remain viewpoints [ except cons} and it has flip flopped in past between Lib dems and SNP heavily so no conflict of interest as regards staying in EU. The important word here being "heavily".

So I think nationally as to what  the rest of the UK is thinking,to be able to  join forces to really push out Cons . That is a Lib Dem  overall majority, surely.

Much also personally correlates with my own views, I concede, but surely Lib Dem is also the more tactical vote, should you choose to view this election tactically nationally,   in some Scottish  constituencies where there are heavy pro EU electorates anyway and it doesn't matter if you vote SNP or Lib Dem, one of them will win.

Post edited at 10:11
1
 Offwidth 25 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

May's and Boris' s deals were tricky because of red lines and  Northern Island (in Boris' s case the main implications occur after the UK has left, as it makes negotiation of what he wants with the EU almost impossible). Labour will not follow that, their negotiated brexit will be much softer such that those red lines and NI issues won't arise. You say the Norway and Swiss models won't work but neglect to recognise a not totally dissimilar but bespoke deal is also possible for the UK. As for what will work, we are talking something the EU can agree in outline (easier than it was for Boris, who did it in weeks but is no miracle worker) and what Labour HQ think (they haven't always the best grasp of economic reality but their not willing to drive the UK economy off an obvious cliff like Boris seems to be).

More important people need to stand up and call out Boris' s dangerous lies as they are the real main threat... some morning headlines today are from the hated Blair, who in his own tribal foolishness makes both leaders look as bad as each other. The electoral reality is not looking like one party or the other... it's looking at the moment to be Boris or a minority government. 

3
 Offwidth 25 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

I'd certainly agree supporting (subject to the local issues and candidates) Scottish Lib Dems in Lib Dem  SNP marginals to ensure the SNP are not too dominant, is a good idea.  People need to look seat by seat across the UK who it's best to vote for to keep the tories out of a majority. What Boris's plans result in, when his fantasies hit reality, may well make Thatcher look like a pussy cat and the Scottish memory of her policy outcomes is still very clear despite starting more than 40 years ago. I think this is the most important UK election since 1945 and it would be horrible if the progressives lost because of side arguments: stop Boris' s brexit and kick out the most reactionary and dangerous cabinet in modern history first, then deal with any other big issues in the aftermath.

3
 Robert Durran 25 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I slightly question your approach to tactical voting in Scotland .  Remain parties are likely to win here  unless you are in an unusual  Conservatively minded, knife- edge,  constituency. 

I live in a marginal Con/SNP constituency which switched from SNP to Con in 2017. The other parties are miles behind. So voting SNP is a no brainer as a tactical remain vote. I would also argue that it is paradoxically the strongest unionist vote since the two things which are going to drive Scotland to independence are Brexit and five years of Johnson as PM.

 Phil79 25 Nov 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I reckon Jeremy Corbyn’s daemon is a cuckoo.

Chameleon surely?

1
In reply to MargieB:

> So I think nationally as to what  the rest of the UK is thinking,to be able to  join forces to really push out Cons . That is a Lib Dem  overall majority, surely.

Unless there's some huge reversal in the polling there is zero chance of a Lib Dem majority.  The UK polls show the LibDem vote collapsing and getting picked up by the Tories and Labour.   Which is a hell of a shame but what FPTP and completely biased national media does.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798197

It is looking like a Labour vs Tory fight in England and SNP vs Tory fight in Scotland.

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

A Lib Dem vote in Scotland is a wasted vote. As is a vote for Labour. It's a straight contest between the SNP and the Tories. That's leaving aside a fundamental and well deserved lack of trust in the Liberal Democrats .... in Scotland we haven't forgotten Jo's unqualified support for austerity, apparent enthusiasm for nuclear weapons and her willingness to ignore the democratic right of Scottish voters to self determination.

2
 Franco Cookson 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

Nonsense! What about all the places that Labour and the Lib Dems won in 2017?

The second part of your post is bang on the money mind.

> A Lib Dem vote in Scotland is a wasted vote. As is a vote for Labour. It's a straight contest between the SNP and the Tories. 

 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is looking like a Labour vs Tory fight in England and SNP vs Tory fight in Scotland.

I think the Libdems may be more relevant in the Highlands than those polls suggest. 

I certainly hope so as I can't support the fundamental policy of either the SNP or Conservatives.

(can't support revoke article 50 without a referendum or no indyref2 in the event of an SNP majority in 2021 either mind you. Lesser of three evils then) 

Post edited at 16:55
1
 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Looking at the most recent polling Labour may well be reduced to one seat in Scotland. They're effectively finished in Scotland and have all but given up. The Lib Dems only have four seats at present and I'd put my money on Amy Callaghan taking Jo Swinson's seat in East Dunbartonshire. Swinson couldn't even be bothered turning up at the hustings in Dumbarton the other night. In my opinion the Lib gems are simply hoping for another minority Tory government that they can enable ..... once again.

1
 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

Just a wee reminder that there is already a mandate for indyref2 in Scotland.....if a section 30 order is requested by the Scottish government and refused by a Westminster government then that's when our democracy will be tested.

 MargieB 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

Yes, there is the luxury of not really a Con in sight up here of political significance.

Post edited at 17:31
 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

> Just a wee reminder that there is already a mandate for indyref2 in Scotland.....if a section 30 order is requested by the Scottish government and refused by a Westminster government then that's when our democracy will be tested.

Is there? The SNP are a minority government. Arguably their test has been met. The test the Greens set has not.

An SNP majority in 2021 would remove any objection. 

If you are going to have indyref2 best have it beyond reproach. 

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

I think the contest itself clearly has to be beyond reproach. Agreed. But the independence supporting parties in Scotland won the Scottish elections in 2016, the UK elections in 2017 and for good measure the European elections. There is of course still a majority in the Scottish parliament for an independence referendum in 2020. Something that Patrick Harvie has again reinforced only today. And the Scottish parliament has passed a motion agreeing that the Scottish Government can request a section 30 order at a time of their choosing. If on Dec 12th, once again, the majority of Westminster seats go to independence supporting parties in Scotland then it seems clear that the powers to call a referendum should be passed to Holyrood. It's simply a question of giving Scottish voters the choice they were promised if circumstances changed materially after 2014.....which they certainly have.

 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

However the premises put to the electorate in 2016 have not occurred. It may be that we don't leave the EU, there may not be a Conservative government on December 13th. There may be a further brexit referendum. There may never be a petition signed by a million, opinion polls may never run 60% in favour of independence.

That these objections may reasonably raised (to a greater or lesser degree) spell trouble for any referendum. I don't want independence but if it occurs I don't want it to be open to question. If nothing else the brexit referendum should have taught us that. Peaceful acceptance requires the consent of the losers and there are enough fringe idiots on both sides to make that less than certain. The dislocation would/will be bad enough without the wilder elements crying 'its no fair'. 

 Franco Cookson 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

You're dead right in most of your points, but you've got to be pretty careful suggesting it's pointless voting for labour or lib dems in places where a split vote could let the Tories in, especially in places where labour might or will win.

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

I agree with much of what you say. But I'm afraid that regardless of the result there will be "diehards" that will always find acceptance difficult. My principal point is that the decision of when to hold a referendum and how that referendum is conducted would be a matter for Scottish voters and the Scottish parliament. Not a matter reserved to Westminster as it is now.

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to Franco Cookson:

I would tend to agree with you in English constituencies, but in Scotland we do have some specific circumstances and policy differences that make those tactical nuances more complex. Because Scottish voters are also faced with the option of escaping Tory rule and staying in the EU by ending the union with the rest of the UK. That means voting for a party that respects the right of Scottish voters to choose self determination if they wish.

 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

I would say we had a referendum which amongst other things reserved those powers to Westminster and if we wish to ensure respect for referendum results we agree with we should respect ones we disagree with. 

That doesn't mean no indyref2 just that the process must be unimpeachable. 

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

I'm afraid when it comes to Scotland Westminster doesn't know the meaning of the word respect. Or how to play by the rules. That's why in Scotland we need to make sure that the democratic rights of the Scottish people come before what a Westminster government with no mandate in Scotland wants.

1
 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

> I'm afraid when it comes to Scotland Westminster doesn't know the meaning of the word respect. Or how to play by the rules. That's why in Scotland we need to make sure that the democratic rights of the Scottish people come before what a Westminster government with no mandate in Scotland wants.

It was a Scottish referendum that rejected independence not the Westminster government that facilitated it. I would be surprised if a repetition of the 2011 results didn't result in a further S30 if it was asked for.

If it was refused I would join you in protesting that decision. 

 alastairmac 25 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

Good man.

 Franco Cookson 25 Nov 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

Well yes, if the only outcome that is palatable for you is an SNP win in your constituency,  then you need to vote SNP. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

> If you are going to have indyref2 best have it beyond reproach. 

If we are going to have indyref2 best have it before Brexit is so locked in it is hard to overturn - or for that matter before Corbyn has had a chance to stick a few hundred billion more on the national debt which he'll try and hand us a share of.

There's a perfectly good mandate already.   If Johnson gets elected by England and the SNP get elected in Scotland then the SNP should demand an s30 order immediately and if they don't get it they should either go to court or run the referendum without it.   Things are only going to get worse the longer they wait.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-brexit-late...

1
 rogerwebb 25 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If we are going to have indyref2 best have it before Brexit is so locked in it is hard to overturn - or for that matter before Corbyn has had a chance to stick a few hundred billion more on the national debt which he'll try and hand us a share of.

We will be out of the EU with independence whether brexit has or has not happened. 

> There's a perfectly good mandate already.   If Johnson gets elected by England and the SNP get elected in Scotland then the SNP should demand an s30 order immediately and if they don't get it they should either go to court or run the referendum without it.   Things are only going to get worse the longer they wait.

That your alleged mandate can reasonably be disputed suggests that it is not 'perfectly good'. 

If the Supreme Court supports the right to run a referendum then fair enough, I doubt it will but such a decision would be indisputable.

Running a referendum without such a decision or a S30 order would be a recipe for chaos, potential boycott and a disputed result. Whatever the result it would be poor for Scotland (and the UK). 

In reply to rogerwebb:

It is going to be much easier to stay in the EU (or get back in the EU) if we leave the UK before the Tories start changing rules to make us incompatible with EU membership, more EU citizens leave and businesses start to adjust to trading outside the EU.  The faster we reverse this nonsense the easier it is going to be.

The mandate for indyref2 absolutely rock solid.  Holding indyref2 was in the SNP manifesto, they got elected and they put a bill through the Holyrood parliament.  Why would they need to get elected again to do something they were already elected to do?   That argument is a unionist delaying tactic.  They want to control the timing to make a YES vote less likely.

1
 The Ivanator 25 Nov 2019
In reply to subtle:

From the evidence of this thread it appears only two issues were discussed in the Leader's Question Time - Brexit and IndyRef2. Doesn't quite fit with quite the footage I saw, but perhaps illustrates the issues with current resonance (rightly or wrongly). The environment and health seem pretty major areas that are getting no airtime on this thread. And what of Russian interference? Would be interesting to know what way the mischievous Russians would like to see IndyRef2 heading before that ship is launched. 

 Pefa 26 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Brexit could be the final straw for the union as Scots are pushed over edge by English voters voting Tory and brexit. It seems inevitable now and I'm rather sad considering JCs Labour Party are miles better on worker friendly policies than the SNP could ever be so the whole reason Scots turned from Labour to the SNP in the first place has now been corrected but nat voters are blinded by this promised land of independence.

 rogerwebb 26 Nov 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is going to be much easier to stay in the EU (or get back in the EU) if we leave the UK before the Tories start changing rules to make us incompatible with EU membership, more EU citizens leave and businesses start to adjust to trading outside the EU.  The faster we reverse this nonsense the easier it is going to be.

There is no 'stay in the EU' in the event of independence. Whether Scotland's economy and structure of government is compatible with EU membership is up to the EU and any future Scottish government. Nothing to do with the anything done within the UK. 

> The mandate for indyref2 absolutely rock solid.  Holding indyref2 was in the SNP manifesto, they got elected and they put a bill through the Holyrood parliament.  Why would they need to get elected again to do something they were already elected to do?   That argument is a unionist delaying tactic.  They want to control the timing to make a YES vote less likely.

It is clearly not 'rock solid' or reasonable objections could not be made. 

If independence is achieved without following unarguably lawful procedures it will be a mess. It will impact on negotiations with rUK, it will have consequences concerning joining the EU. It will have consequences within Scotland. 

I don't want independence but if we are to have it I would prefer to get into the EU as fast as possible and have good relations with the neighbours. Any less than entirely lawful process will jeopardise both. 

 MargieB 27 Nov 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

That is an interesting switch from SNP to Con. So did your constituency vote against an independent scotland like my constituency in 2016? That would seem a very relevant factor in your constituency to explain SNP to Con change? 

But  did they also vote for Brexit too ? mine did not.

It is more complex in Scotland to judge tactical voting.

Post edited at 10:55
 MargieB 27 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

The Lib Dems relevancy in the Highlands and Scotland generally  is because their very Party structure is devolved with strong  federalist  approach, reflecting particular Scottish needs  [ {Actually reflecting a desired structure  for the UK by doing so in their own party structure -   similarly  the Greens } 

 unlike the deeply centralised Labour Party structure that Lamont exposed when she was Labour leader in Scotland.

Post edited at 10:53
 MargieB 27 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

And the reasons Scotland turned from Labour to SNP is much more rooted in this idea of centralisation as a basic source of governance than economic policy differences.

 rogerwebb 27 Nov 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> And the reasons Scotland turned from Labour to SNP is much more rooted in this idea of centralisation as a basic source of governance than economic policy differences.

If that is the case then the level and pace of centralisation within Scotland is a bit ironic. 

1
 MargieB 27 Nov 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

Yes, that has been a source of contention as regards SNP Scottish Parliamentary policy. And Scottish Liberals and Scottish Greens have tried to counterpoise it, as regards the Scottish Parliamentary decisions.

It is fair, I think, to say that politics in Scotland consist of  ranges of centre left economic thinking.

Post edited at 14:27

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...