Jump to content

Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Imagine Labour being forced into the choice of either  i) stepping aside to let the Tories walk into government, or ii) let the SNP be in joint charge of running England.

image.png.f0181f2e766f4d770e8d70bda7fa79a7.png

I think there is a very high chance of the numbers stacking up that way - Labour plus LibDems < Tories ane DUP, but Labour plus SNP > than Tories and DUP.

Cannot see the SNP wanting to be in a coalition but I could see a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement with commitment to a further Indy Ref being offered by the SNP.  Not sure if Starmer would accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I can see the comparisons but think it's probably too easy to directly compare them. 

I think it's too hard to try and work out what is likely to happen if Labour were to win the next election, they may well f**k it up and a bigger meaner Tory will come in but they may make a success of it and make serious improvements for people for a significant period of time. The Tories have the same issue as the SNP right now that they don't have a credible person to step up and continue as they were, the US comparison falls down there imo. I don't follow US politics but from what I gather this DeSantis fella is in the Trump mould whereas there's nobody really in the Boris mould. When he goes I'd imagine they'll pull back to the centre rather than doubling down. Labour can have Burnham and Nandy for the foreseeable, keep Angela around to placate the lefties but don't let her near the top job or all the good work is ruined imo. 

Let's just say for discussion sake that we have a General Election before next Autumn, what do the SNP stand for considering they're already committed to having a referendum? 

Aye, the UK isn't quite as polarised as the US - you're never going to get even a centrist-ish candidate from the other party in even as a 'protest vote' - but again, you guys are a couple of years behind us, so here's hoping it doesn't become bad as that in Blighty. 

I would imagine the SNP would campaign on centre-to-left issues like schools, hospitals, families etc, and it'd mesh quite well with Labour. I think they'd have one eye on being kingmakers and I think you'd see SNP bods quite frequently quoting the likes of Burnham and Rayner (less so Nandy after her 'treat them like Catalans' escapade) in interviews. I think Nicola would say she'd be quite open to working with Starmer and disclaimer it with 'should that need ever arise'. There's no particular animosity between her and Sarwar, they go back a long way. I'm not close enough to it any more to know if they *wouldn't* campaign on a referendum - I think it would certainly be brought up from time to time to make sure they weren't getting *too* close, although I think that would be left more to Angus Robertson than Nicola, which seems to be how its going at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

If BoJo does wangle an early election, it'll be hilarious watching the rebellious Scottish Tories try to explain why they want him re-elected as Prime Minister. 

Not going to happen.  Let’s assume you’re correct about him having the power to do it on his own (you’re not) then he probably wouldn’t get selected to fight the seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Aye, the UK isn't quite as polarised as the US - you're never going to get even a centrist-ish candidate from the other party in even as a 'protest vote' - but again, you guys are a couple of years behind us, so here's hoping it doesn't become bad as that in Blighty. 

I would imagine the SNP would campaign on centre-to-left issues like schools, hospitals, families etc, and it'd mesh quite well with Labour. I think they'd have one eye on being kingmakers and I think you'd see SNP bods quite frequently quoting the likes of Burnham and Rayner (less so Nandy after her 'treat them like Catalans' escapade) in interviews. I think Nicola would say she'd be quite open to working with Starmer and disclaimer it with 'should that need ever arise'. There's no particular animosity between her and Sarwar, they go back a long way. I'm not close enough to it any more to know if they *wouldn't* campaign on a referendum - I think it would certainly be brought up from time to time to make sure they weren't getting *too* close, although I think that would be left more to Angus Robertson than Nicola, which seems to be how its going at the moment. 

An interesting post. I'd be surprised to see SNP cozy up to Labour but it would be a smart way to play it given the hypothetical situation. 

Should certainly be an interesting year or so in British politics. Do you think the next US one will be Trump vs Harris or more likely DeSantis vs someone? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

An interesting post. I'd be surprised to see SNP cozy up to Labour but it would be a smart way to play it given the hypothetical situation. 

Should certainly be an interesting year or so in British politics. Do you think the next US one will be Trump vs Harris or more likely DeSantis vs someone? 

DeSantis is apparently on a shoogly peg in Florida. He won the first one by the skin of his balls and mostly because his opponent was Black - Miami Cubans aren't voting for a black guy and neither is anyone north of around Tampa. Absolute scenes if he gets emptied, however I don't see it because a) Florida can't be relied upon not to shoot itself in the face and B) Illinois' richest man Ken Griffin has taken the huff after pouring $50m into a guy called Richard Irvin to try and empty JB Pritzker and the primary polls have him sitting at 22% and being comfortably trounced by a downstate hick called Darren Bailey. Ronny will be only too happy to let Kenny fund him up the wazoo, and I do notice DeSantis has significantly scaled back on his attacks on Disney; presumably he hopes nobody remembers that come election time. 

Harris won't run if Biden doesn't, and she won't run for Prez, she's been absolutely anonymous. Petey might get the nod because he's transport secretary and we're chucking a load of money at infrastructure so he'll have a lot of wins he can point at come the time; him being gay won't wash as an attack line any more. Pritzker has done a sterling job as governor of Illinois, and again, the attack line of him being a big lad doesn't work given the shape of the average yank. I do know that Fox News will scream CHICAGO as the boogeyman - Ken Griffin has officially said it's the crime rate that's making him move to Florida, and not because Illinois voters keep rejecting his shite. Pity he's chosen to build a $100mm estate in West Palm Beach which has a higher crime rate than Chicago at 40.4 per 1000 people vs 35.2. Murphy's made some excellent addresses in the wake of the recent mass shootings and while 'I'm coming for your AR15's' scuppered Beto in Texas, that might not be the case nationally. I don't know of any particularly good attack lines on him other than he's Connecticut so is fairly easily painted as 'coastal liberal elite'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Not going to happen.  Let’s assume you’re correct about him having the power to do it on his own (you’re not) then he probably wouldn’t get selected to fight the seat.

🤣

Can you point out a single piece of legislation that shows he doesn't have the power to single-handedly call an election?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Left Back said:

🤣

Can you point out a single piece of legislation that shows he doesn't have the power to single-handedly call an election?

 

This is an extract from what you posted earlier:

The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act does the following:

Repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011;

Revives the prerogative powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament, and the calling of a new Parliament. In doing so, the Act allows a Prime Minister to request a dissolution from the Sovereign which, if granted, would enable a Prime Minister to call a general election at a time of their choosing;

I have boldened the relevant bits as you are obviously struggling with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:

Imagine Labour being forced into the choice of either  i) stepping aside to let the Tories walk into government, or ii) let the SNP be in joint charge of running England.

image.png.f0181f2e766f4d770e8d70bda7fa79a7.png

That door swings both ways. 

Imagine the SNP having the choice of 1) stepping aside to let the Tories walk into government or 2) demonstrate that Scottish votes *do* matter at Westminster after all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Uncle Psychosis said:

That door swings both ways. 

Imagine the SNP having the choice of 1) stepping aside to let the Tories walk into government or 2) demonstrate that Scottish votes *do* matter at Westminster after all. 

 

Not really. SNP don't have a large enough contingent of MPs to begin forming a UK government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

This is an extract from what you posted earlier:

The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act does the following:

Repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011;

Revives the prerogative powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament, and the calling of a new Parliament. In doing so, the Act allows a Prime Minister to request a dissolution from the Sovereign which, if granted, would enable a Prime Minister to call a general election at a time of their choosing;

I have boldened the relevant bits as you are obviously struggling with them.

You do realise that in all these things the Queen has an entirely ceremonial role and the legislation reflects the fact that notionally it is the monarch which dissolves parliament and not actually the PM.  She will however do exactly as the PM asks her to do.

I think it's very obvious who's struggling here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zern said:

Not really. SNP don't have a large enough contingent of MPs to begin forming a UK government.

... but in that circumstance Scottish voters would have had enough of an influence to affect which party formed the UK govt.

It's a fair point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

You do realise that in all these things the Queen has an entirely ceremonial role and the legislation reflects the fact that notionally it is the monarch which dissolves parliament and not actually the PM.  She will however do exactly as the PM asks her to do.

I think it's very obvious who's struggling here.

You asked me to point to legislation, I point to legislation, you then respond with opinion.  The wording in legislation is very precise for a reason, for example may rather than shall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hedgecutter said:

... but in that circumstance Scottish voters would have had enough of an influence to affect which party formed the UK govt.

It's a fair point.

It's not equivalent. The Tories and Labour realistically will be the two largest parties elected, so the choice is between those two blocs with some question over whether either would be popular enough to form a government on their own. In that circumstance the SNP, like the Lib-Dems, would not initiate anything, they could only wait for overtures from Labour or the Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You asked me to point to legislation, I point to legislation, you then respond with opinion.  The wording in legislation is very precise for a reason, for example may rather than shall.

🤣

Face it.   you made a c**t of it saying the PM couldn't call an election without the backing of either his party or parliament.  You've been shown to be completely wrong but you're simply not willing to admit to the fact.  clinging onto a ceremonial role thinking the queen could actually block an election is some reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Left Back said:

🤣

Face it.   you made a c**t of it saying the PM couldn't call an election without the backing of either his party or parliament.  You've been shown to be completely wrong but you're simply not willing to admit to the fact.  clinging onto a ceremonial role thinking the queen could actually block an election is some reach.

Maybe you can’t point to the legislation to back up that assertion.  Some that maybe says ‘demand’ rather than ‘request’ and doesn’t include the term ‘if granted’.  I look forward to reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Left Back said:

You do realise that in all these things the Queen has an entirely ceremonial role and the legislation reflects the fact that notionally it is the monarch which dissolves parliament and not actually the PM.  She will however do exactly as the PM asks her to do.

I think it's very obvious who's struggling here.

That went out of the window a bit when it turned out she went over proposed legislation and had her personal lawyers have anything changed that would affect her aversely.

I think it's fair to say that, if it didn't suit, when Boris got on the blower and told Buck House that he was coming down to ask for permission to throw an election, he'd be told to get back to work if he wanted any chance of that knighthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Maybe you can’t point to the legislation to back up that assertion.  Some that maybe says ‘demand’ rather than ‘request’ and doesn’t include the term ‘if granted’.  I look forward to reading it.

Absolutely right. The monarch has about the same "power" over a dissolution of Parliament as the current one has over the contents of "The Queen's Speech". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Maybe you can’t point to the legislation to back up that assertion.  Some that maybe says ‘demand’ rather than ‘request’ and doesn’t include the term ‘if granted’.  I look forward to reading it.

The last time the monarch refused to carry out the wishes of the PM was in 1708.  She is bound to follow the advice and requests of the government under Royal Prerogative.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03861/

ETA that's why she prorogued parliament at Johnson's request, even though everyone knew he was explicitly trying to subvert parliament by proroguing it.  She had zero choice.

Edited by Left Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BFTD said:

That went out of the window a bit when it turned out she went over proposed legislation and had her personal lawyers have anything changed that would affect her aversely.

I think it's fair to say that, if it didn't suit, when Boris got on the blower and told Buck House that he was coming down to ask for permission to throw an election, he'd be told to get back to work if he wanted any chance of that knighthood.

Afraid not, as has already been demonstrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...