Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yeah. I’m not 100% certain I’d want independence - but I’m more positive about it than I was 5 years ago (although I couldn’t vote in 2014). However I do dislike Westminster blocking indyref2 but a people’s vote on Brexit being seen as an acceptable option.
You seem to be implying large scale hypocrisy when comparing those two issues at Westminster, but I don't think that's the case.
The Tories are equally opposed to a 2nd referendum on both Scotland and the EU. So a perfectly consistent position.
Labour were supportive of a second referendum on the EU, and not entirely ruling out a 2nd Scottish one - just saying, not in the first couple of years because they had other priorities. That's roughly consistent if you consider that the EU is a far more urgent issue.
The LibDems are the only ones that you could say are being inconsistent - being open to a 2nd EU referendum but not a 2nd Scottish one.
Agreed. A quick check of the results shows that Labour, the Conservatives and the LibDems between them got - if my calculation is correct (figures here) - just over 53% of the votes in Scotland. So that's over 53% going to parties that are opposed to a new referendum. There's no way you can argue that's any kind of mandate for another referendum. Not going to stop Nicola Sturgeon claiming exactly that though . I wonder if the Conservatives will be sufficiently clued up to point out those figures.
They'd open themselves up to the "but you only won ~44% of the vote and yet you've got this stonking great majority" counter. People in glass houses etc.
The more I've reflected on this, the more I've realised personality has a LOT to do with it. I think if Corbyn had faced Cameron, Gove or Boris in 2017, he'd have done as badly as he did yesterday. As it happens, he was up against May, who has all the charm and appeal of a zombie. I found her creepy in the extreme, and it's no surprise she did badly with her grim manifesto. If he couldn't beat someone so catastrophically unappealing, there's no way he'd cope with someone like Boris, who has a larger-than-life personality and a deliberately populist agenda.
May is a terrible orator. Not having seen much of her since summer, she was briefly interviewed during her count at Maidenhead last night, and I was immediately struck by just how bad a communicator she is. It’s probably a bit unfair, but she comes across very cold and robotic. Add in a poor campaign and the dire social care proposals and for me it’s easy to see why people turned away from her.
Various stories in the media to say that had the Brexit party stood down in Labour seats as well,the Conservative majority would have been around 100. MPs like Ed Milliband, Dan Jarvis and vile misandrist Yvette Cooper would have lost their seats.
Incidentally, had the reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 taken place the conservative majority is estimated at around 135.
Good call. Will be interesting if the boundary changes actually go ahead, now there’s finally a government with a majority to last 5 years and deliver it. I expect even balancing the constituency sizes but keeping 650 MPs might stir things up...
Good call. Will be interesting if the boundary changes actually go ahead, now there’s finally a government with a majority to last 5 years and deliver it. I expect even balancing the constituency sizes but keeping 650 MPs might stir things up...
The current boundaries have been around for a while, so, even ignoring political concerns, there's probably a good argument that it's time they were updated. At the same time, the proposed redrawing from the Cameron era is itself now pretty out of date, so it wouldn't make that much sense to use that. The reduction from 650 to 600 MPs was a politically motivated thing because David Cameron's Government was pushing austerity and the idea of reducing the size of Government, but was pretty unpopular with MPs from all parties (as well as being objectively bad from the point of view of MPs workloads and reducing connectivity with their constituents). For that reason, I'd hope (and expect) that the Government would launch another boundary review, relaxing some of the requirements that caused the previous review to give rather unpopular results.
(Of course, I'd really hope that the Government goes for wholesale electoral reform, but there's absolutely no chance of the Tories doing that )
For that reason, I'd hope (and expect) that the Government would launch another boundary review, relaxing some of the requirements that caused the previous review to give rather unpopular results.
Ayesha Hazarika on Sky at present calling for Corbyn to go immediately. I expect more Labour moderates to do similar over the coming days. There’s going to be a hell of a battle for the soul of the Labour party, and one that the moderates cannot afford to lose.
I'm pretty sure the smallest (by population) constituencies will be the very rural/island ones in the far North of Scotland - which have small populations because the population density in those areas is so tiny that any normal-sized (by population) constituency would have to cover an unmanageably large geographical area. And those seats have tended for quite a few years to be held by the LibDems and the SNP.
But in general, balancing population has historically favoured the Conservatives - because the tendency for people to move out of very poor (and usually Labour) constituencies tends to lead over time to Labour constituencies becoming on average very slightly smaller, so the periodic re-balancing almost always removes a few constituencies from Labour areas.
Agreed. A quick check of the results shows that Labour, the Conservatives and the LibDems between them got - if my calculation is correct (figures here) - just over 53% of the votes in Scotland. So that's over 53% going to parties that are opposed to a new referendum. There's no way you can argue that's any kind of mandate for another referendum. Not going to stop Nicola Sturgeon claiming exactly that though . I wonder if the Conservatives will be sufficiently clued up to point out those figures.
It was only the Conservatives that were explicit No2IndyRef2 to use the slogan in leaflets, on podiums for speeches etc - it was about the only policy put forward in Scotland by the Tories and this resulted in them losing vote share and more than half their seats in Scotland. Labour has been arguing (badly) that we need to look beyond the constitutional questions, so the SNP clearly have reenforced their mandate from 2016 and the Scottish Parliament elected by PR has in majority backed the principle of a new Indy Ref in the very circumstances now facing Scotland.
HM Government has already had it's fingers burnt in the Court of Session recently, there are constitutional questions which the UK government would probably rather were never tested in the Court of Session under Scots Law - which is part of the reason for the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement.
I assume the Fixed Term Parliaments Act will be repealed, and hope that it is. Meaning that the next election will not be set for December 2024, and more probably will take place in summer 2024 at a time of the government's choosing, as used to be the practice.
The fixed term Parliament Act requires a scheduled General Election to occur in the May closest to 5 years from the previous - the next election is thus not scheduled for Dec 2024, notionally May 2025 - but previous Parliament Acts restrict it to 5 years, so it will be May 2024.
On the topic of the SNP, I find it very disingeneuous to conflate their election performance with an appetite for IndyRef 2.
They should really face the fact that Scotland will be dragged out of Europe and show some respect for the 2014 result. The greatest support they could garner for a second Indy referendum is if they concentrated on the day job and provided excellent government for Scotland effectively addressing problems with transport, health and education for a few years. I suspect that they know that this will mean (again) raising taxes and they know that their popularity may fall if they do this which is why they are trying to rush a second IndyRef.* I'm not sure that Brexit will prove to be the major change in circumstance that they are bigging it up to be ; we'll have to wait and see.
I voted SNP in an attempt to keep out the Tory, but I'm not sure I have the appetite for another divisive constitutional vote right now (if you could leave it until after I am dead, that might be good since it was a once-in-a-generation thing). Whether I would support independence is something I would give careful thought to (again) at the time of an IndyRef but would prefer to get on with my life and a bit of political stability for a while ... unless it's outright Civil War , in which case count me in.
* They had tax raising powers before the previous IndyRef but didn't use them.
The fixed term Parliament Act requires a scheduled General Election to occur in the May closest to 5 years from the previous - the next election is thus not scheduled for Dec 2024, notionally May 2025 - but previous Parliament Acts restrict it to 5 years, so it will be May 2024.
Thank you for correcting me, you are completely right. I'm still pretty sure that the legislation will still be repealed, although my memory is obviously sometimes faulty I believe I recall hearing some Conservative statement of intent here during the campaign.
I don't think anyone can challenge the legitimacy of the Conservative Party to govern the Country. After this Election they are the only Party represented all over the UK albeit marginally in Scotland. Seats from the North of Scotland to the South West of England and all points inbetween including North and South Wales. No one else has such a geographic spread.
Taking Scotland aside the Borders are still pure blue on both sides. I think Boris Johnson should grant a Section 30 Notice and call the SNP's bluff. If we decide to secede so be it, I as a Scottish Conservative can live with that. I voted to leave the UK and the EU , probably a rare position but not unique.
So you'd be against extending the vote because a certain demographic of people don't agree with you politically? Maybe under that same logic we should ban everyone older than 60 from voting... But we won't as it's a ridiculous idea and quite frankly ageist.
My eldest* was asking why they couldn't vote. Given that they were engaged enough to watch the BBC's leaders debate and choose between the leaders having listened to the opening statements, they could well be more engaged than those who just vote for whichever party they always vote for.
Then we got on the discussion as to why if you want something different to others and those others tend to be younger than you then you'll tend to argue that the rules are fine as they are, or even argue that they should change to suit you.
Ayesha Hazarika on Sky at present calling for Corbyn to go immediately. I expect more Labour moderates to do similar over the coming days. There’s going to be a hell of a battle for the soul of the Labour party, and one that the moderates cannot afford to lose.
My eldest* was asking why they couldn't vote. Given that they were engaged enough to watch the BBC's leaders debate and choose between the leaders having listened to the opening statements, they could well be more engaged than those who just vote for whichever party they always vote for.
Then we got on the discussion as to why if you want something different to others and those others tend to be younger than you then you'll tend to argue that the rules are fine as they are, or even argue that they should change to suit you.
I'm convinced most schoolkids from about the age of 7 / 8 upwards generally have excellent awareness (if not necessarily a full understanding) of current affairs through school assemblies etc. Much more so that alot of the adult population.
I'm convinced most schoolkids from about the age of 7 / 8 upwards generally have excellent awareness (if not necessarily a full understanding) of current affairs through school assemblies etc. Much more so that alot of the adult population.
I don’t doubt they have awareness, but as you say the lack of understanding is an issue. Likewise the lack of life experience means they are rather more susceptible to having thoughts and ideas planted in their mind without the means of being able to refute.
Reminds me of the last election when many young people did choose to give Corbyn a go. In the following days we then heard “what is D U P?”. To be fair this applies to a fair few adults too. Something to remember looking at my tax payments and thinking of a certain £1 billion!
Time will tell, however the structure of the Labour Party will make it quite hard to shake off the Momentum grip for as long as that remains the make-up of the membership. Remember the MPs tried to dispose of Corbyn and didn’t succeed.
The Conservatives had a similar albeit less severe issue in the 2000s with their elderly membership, which was partly behind the lurch to the right under Hague and IDS. Without wishing to sound nasty most of these are no longer with us, however old age won’t apply with Labour.
My eldest* was asking why they couldn't vote. Given that they were engaged enough to watch the BBC's leaders debate and choose between the leaders having listened to the opening statements, they could well be more engaged than those who just vote for whichever party they always vote for.
Then we got on the discussion as to why if you want something different to others and those others tend to be younger than you then you'll tend to argue that the rules are fine as they are, or even argue that they should change to suit you.
While i would say that 7 is too young to vote, i do think the age should be lowered to 16. I know for a fact when i was 14-17 i had a good understanding of politics and what party i would've voted for if i could - i voted in this election and can say my basic views and perception haven't really changed. Truthfully speaking most 14-18 year olds probably have a better grasp of current politics than many 30+ year old "adults", it was frustrating more than anything that at the time i wasn't able to vote on my future.
There is a feeling among younger people that "older people" (those over 70) shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's not their future, i suspect the frustration of 16/17 year olds not being able to vote is part of the reason some people hold this believe. While i can see the point being made i fundamentally disagree on the basis that a 75 year old could potentially still live for another 30 years so it is their future too.
Another point i'd make is that many people (those over the age of 30 particularly) get stuck in the habit of not paying attention to politics but voting for the same party over and over regardless of their policies. If you asked them who they'd voted for and why their reason would be "because it's always who i've voted for".
Lastly yes you're pretty much right, most of those opposed to lowering the age hold that opinion because they're aware that the younger generations are generally speaking more to the left so they wish to restrict 16/17 year olds so that their favoured party can remain in power - additionally i think many people, especially those who grew up before the internet underestimate the intelligence of younger people these days.
I'm convinced most schoolkids from about the age of 7 / 8 upwards generally have excellent awareness (if not necessarily a full understanding) of current affairs through school assemblies etc. Much more so that alot of the adult population.
I'd probably agree to some extent, although i don't think a 10 year old (never mind a 7/8 year old) would be mature / knowledgeable enough to be able to vote. However as i said above i would say by the age of 14/15 i had a good grasp on politics and the policies of each main party at the time.
I'd probably agree to some extent, although i don't think a 10 year old (never mind a 7/8 year old) would be mature / knowledgeable enough to be able to vote. However as i said above i would say by the age of 14/15 i had a good grasp on politics and the policies of each main party at the time.
At around 14/15 (around the time of the 2005 election) I had wrote my own manifesto for if ever I got elected (which I still have years later - it included things free school lunches for everyone, banning cars from schools and having schools teach more about British history!)
Obviously I probably wouldn't have got elected on that had I ever stood for parliament as soon as I was eligible to do so, would I?
The fixed term Parliament Act requires a scheduled General Election to occur in the May closest to 5 years from the previous - the next election is thus not scheduled for Dec 2024, notionally May 2025 - but previous Parliament Acts restrict it to 5 years, so it will be May 2024.
It is in fact the FTPA that schedules the next election for 2 May 2024. The Act doesn't say it should be in the May closest to 5 years, it says "...the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell..." (Section 1(3)).
Because we are still in 2019 the calculation is 2019+5= (May) 2024.
The wording of the Act is clever, but is horrible to read and understand.
One of the problems with repealing the Act is the former prerogative powers have been abolished. So it is likely that a new act will be required to establish a new set of rules.
In my view this is essential as we cannot ever let ourselves be in a position where a Government that has popular support (as this one clearly did have) is prevented from acting by a lack of sufficient majority in the Commons, yet is also prevented from going back to the people to get a fresh mandate.
If the decision to hold an election had been made on 3 September 2019 we would already be talking about it as a historical event, the embarrassment and humiliation of the country would have been minimised, and we'd have all moved on to more important things some months ago.
In my view this is essential as we cannot ever let ourselves be in a position where a Government that has popular support (as this one clearly did have) is prevented from acting by a lack of sufficient majority in the Commons, yet is also prevented from going back to the people to get a fresh mandate.
If the decision to hold an election had been made on 3 September 2019 we would already be talking about it as a historical event, the embarrassment and humiliation of the country would have been minimised, and we'd have all moved on to more important things some months ago.
I agree that it should be repealed, with all the difficulties which I hadn't realised that you point out, but for different reasons.
The ability for MPs, Parliament and the government to know the date of the general election long in advance is of significant benefit to them and to the media but of little benefit to the electorate. Having uncertainty which causes the election date to be driven by political events is much better, even when the final decision is left to the Prime Minister.
I agree with you that this election should have been held earlier, driven by the inability of the government to govern, and on this occasion the circumstances aligned so that it was probably in everyone's interest to have held the election earlier. In general, however, I think the FTPA gives benefit only to the politicians and the media, which is why it was enacted in the first place, and the sooner is it abolished the better. So I do agree with you there.
Ayesha Hazarika on Sky at present calling for Corbyn to go immediately. I expect more Labour moderates to do similar over the coming days. There’s going to be a hell of a battle for the soul of the Labour party, and one that the moderates cannot afford to lose.
I'd probably agree to some extent, although i don't think a 10 year old (never mind a 7/8 year old) would be mature / knowledgeable enough to be able to vote. However as i said above i would say by the age of 14/15 i had a good grasp on politics and the policies of each main party at the time.
. I wonder if the Conservatives will be sufficiently clued up to point out those figures.
