Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[StreetwiseHercules]

I honestly wonder how Dugdale manages to get up and turn up for work every day. It must be soul destroying or it would be for a normal person.

She thinks it's all a blip in her "meteoric" rise. Her quote.

[StreetwiseHercules]

I must admit, the closer this election comes. The more I think the Tories will beat Labour. I'm curious to know what odds are being laid on Tories becoming the main party of opposition?

I dont think we have a main party of opposition but I do now think the Tories will beat them.

[glasgow-sheep]

[Colkitto]

When you're down you're down. And launching your manifesto  on the day the latest polling shows you coming 3rd to the Tories proves you are down     

[Antlion]

I dont think we have a main party of opposition but I do now think the Tories will beat them.

If the Tories become the opposition, how very easy for Sturgeon to weekly mock and deride wee Ruthie for having David Cameron's hand up her skirt working her mouth. Every time there's a new scandal in head office down south, Ruth's dedication to Cameron's overlordship as her party leader and his position as her preferred ideological superior will be easy pickings for any FM.

[Dunning1874]

I still reckon 22 seats is the ceiling for the Tories while 22 is as low as Labour can conceivably go so have been consistent in saying the Tories aren't taking second, but with every passing poll...

 

The way the campaign rhetoric has gone makes it a no lose in a way. If Labour end up third it'll be hilarious to see how far they've fallen, but the Tories have set themselves up for a fall as well. Finishing second would be an incredible result for them, but now finishing third would be seen as a massive failure after Davidson talking up their chances of second so much. Massive pointing and laughing at the third placed party either way.

[Peppino Impastato]

Davidson has been and is being sold hard by the Tories and the MSM as a friendly, huggable, fresh young thang. It's rarely acknowledged that she's David Cameron's puppet and answers to him directly.

7

Yeah the snap need to keep linking her to the dismantling of the welfare state and suicides of disabled people her bosses in London are orchestrating.

[Bishop Briggs]

^ Fuzzy's head's gone. 

[renton]

I still reckon 22 seats is the ceiling for the Tories while 22 is as low as Labour can conceivably go so have been consistent in saying the Tories aren't taking second, but with every passing poll...

 

The way the campaign rhetoric has gone makes it a no lose in a way. If Labour end up third it'll be hilarious to see how far they've fallen, but the Tories have set themselves up for a fall as well. Finishing second would be an incredible result for them, but now finishing third would be seen as a massive failure after Davidson talking up their chances of second so much. Massive pointing and laughing at the third placed party either way.

 

To be fair, I think there is some truth in the notion that the path to indpeendence lies over the broken corpse of the Labour party. If you can succesfully tie Unionism to Toryism, then that's a major hurdle cleared.

[Bishop Briggs]

To be fair, I think there is some truth in the notion that the path to indpeendence lies over the broken corpse of the Labour party. If you can succesfully tie Unionism to Toryism, then that's a major hurdle cleared.

 

Labour needs a large number of Scottish seats to have a chance of governing in Westminster with a workable majority. Tying Unionism to Toryism will not be easy as Labour needs the Union more than the Conservatives.

 

There are a significant number of Conservatives who would like Britain to dump Scotland to stuff Labour permanently. With only the hapless Mundell in the Commons, the Conservative leadership has nothing to lose or gain from the Union.

[Ira Gaines]

Can Fuzzy not f**k off?

[Antlion]

Labour needs a large number of Scottish seats to have a chance of governing in Westminster with a workable majority. Tying Unionism to Toryism will not be easy as Labour needs the Union more than the Conservatives.

There are a significant number of Conservatives who would like Britain to dump Scotland to stuff Labour permanently. With only the hapless Mundell in the Commons, the Conservative leadership has nothing to lose or gain from the Union.

Not true. As far as I'm aware, every GE Labour has won in modern history, it would have won even if not a single seat in Scotland had been red. Blair always had majorities in England without needing seats in Scotland. All having a number of Scottish seats does for Labour is take the pressure off getting that number of seats in England - but, as I say, when they've actually formed UK governments, this pressure has not existed as they've taken England easily. In short, Labour has never needed any of Scotland's paltry 59 seats to form a majority UK government - but t rather got used to having most of them.

The price to the Tories for losing the northern region would not be in seats, but in reputation. No PM would want to go down as the one who "lost" a chunk of the state's territory.

[Alan Stubbs]

https://mobile.twitter.com/voteNeilFindlay/status/725286473235308546

Didn't know big Calvin was a Labour man.

[Granny Danger]

Not true. As far as I'm aware, every GE Labour has won in modern history, it would have won even if not a single seat in Scotland had been red. Blair always had majorities in England without needing seats in Scotland. All having a number of Scottish seats does for Labour is take the pressure off getting that number of seats in England - but, as I say, when they've actually formed UK governments, this pressure has not existed as they've taken England easily. In short, Labour has never needed any of Scotland's paltry 59 seats to form a majority UK government - but t rather got used to having most of them.

The price to the Tories for losing the northern region would not be in seats, but in reputation. No PM would want to go down as the one who "lost" a chunk of the state's territory.

I think this is one of those instances where you can't simply point to past results. Before the recent domination of the SNP turned Scottish politics on its head Labour could always expect 40+ MPs. No political party can ignore the potential of such a number in a chamber of 650. Even now, and despite Labour's rhetoric at the last election, 50+ SNP MPs could have supported a Labour minority government had the results went differently; they would never support the Tories.

[renton]

Labour needs a large number of Scottish seats to have a chance of governing in Westminster with a workable majority. Tying Unionism to Toryism will not be easy as Labour needs the Union more than the Conservatives.

 

There are a significant number of Conservatives who would like Britain to dump Scotland to stuff Labour permanently. With only the hapless Mundell in the Commons, the Conservative leadership has nothing to lose or gain from the Union.

 

Well, firstly, Labour doesn't. It only wins GEs where it wins the most seats in England -Scottish seats very rarely influence the overall outcome of those. Secondly, the Conservative leadership does have something to lose: British identity, prestige and international standing all take a hit when 10% of your population decide they can't stand your country any more and want out. That's before you get to the practical losses, including the all important missile hub at Faslane. British soft power has traditionally been projected through a sense of continuity in it's establishment and confidence in it's long standing democratic institutions, all that goes to shit when part of the country literally and figuratively fucks off. Electoral math is one thing, but this is about seats at the top table - and the strength of Britain in the world is actually fairly near the top of Tory canon.

 

However, the point is not so much to link Unionism to Toryism, but to foist it on them in the minds of the electorate. Much easier when the chief opposition are the Tories. The Scottish Tories have campaigned on their "staunch" defence of the Union, indeed have closed the gap on labour by doing so. Let them make Unionism chiefly about tory ideals and it's half a job done already. You have to remove other competing sources of Unionism first - and that means Labour and it's empty platitudes.

[Antlion]

I think this is one of those instances where you can't simply point to past results. Before the recent domination of the SNP turned Scottish politics on its head Labour could always expect 40+ MPs. No political party can ignore the potential of such a number in a chamber of 650. Even now, and despite Labour's rhetoric at the last election, 50+ SNP MPs could have supported a Labour minority government had the results went differently; they would never support the Tories.

Thereon lies the rub. The Tories won a majority without needing Scotland's seat in any capacity, just as Labour has in the past. We can't claim Labour needs Scotland's seats based on results that have never happened.

[Bishop Briggs]

Not true. As far as I'm aware, every GE Labour has won in modern history, it would have won even if not a single seat in Scotland had been red. Blair always had majorities in England without needing seats in Scotland. All having a number of Scottish seats does for Labour is take the pressure off getting that number of seats in England - but, as I say, when they've actually formed UK governments, this pressure has not existed as they've taken England easily. In short, Labour has never needed any of Scotland's paltry 59 seats to form a majority UK government - but t rather got used to having most of them.

The price to the Tories for losing the northern region would not be in seats, but in reputation. No PM would want to go down as the one who "lost" a chunk of the state's territory.

 

Nonsense!

 

1964 - result Labour majority of 4. Would have been Conservative majority of 1 without Scottish MPs

 

February 1974 - result was Labour minority government - 33 votes short. Would have been Conservative minority without Scottish MPs.

 

October 1974 - result Labour majority of 3. Would have been Labour minority (8 votes short) without Scottish MPs.

 

Plus

 

2010 - With no Scottish MPs, Cameron would have had an overall majority of 19 and no need to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Fide]

Nonsense!

 

1964 - result Labour majority of 4. Would have been Conservative majority of 1 without Scottish MPs

 

February 1974 - result was Labour minority government - 33 votes short. Would have been Conservative minority without Scottish MPs.

 

October 1974 - result Labour majority of 3. Would have been Labour minority (8 votes short) without Scottish MPs.

 

Plus

 

2010 - With no Scottish MPs, Cameron would have had an overall majority of 19 and no need to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.

 

^^^ monkey in a red rosette type, imo

[Ad Lib]

^^^ monkey in a red rosette type, imo

FACTS ARE BIASED EH FIDE?

[Antlion]

Nonsense!

1964 - result Labour majority of 4. Would have been Conservative majority of 1 without Scottish MPs

February 1974 - result was Labour minority government - 33 votes short. Would have been Conservative minority without Scottish MPs.

October 1974 - result Labour majority of 3. Would have been Labour minority (8 votes short) without Scottish MPs.

Plus

2010 - With no Scottish MPs, Cameron would have had an overall majority of 19 and no need to form a Coalition with the Lib Dems.

Well all except 2010 (which didn't result in a Labour government and so is not germane to your argument about Labour needing Scotland's seats) are way before my time, but let's look at this in the round 😉: by your own figures, in fifty years, Labour has only needed Scotland's seats twice - once in the 1960s and once in the early 70s - to be the party of government. And in the second example (of that paltry two results) in which Scotland's votes affected the party of government, that government crumbled months later to be replaced with a Labour-led administration, which would have happened (you've guessed it) without Scotland's seats. Remind me how many elections with Labour forming the government there actually were in that period?