Are Labour Dead In The Water?

[Nearly Sane]

The electoral register changes could have impact on Labour, particularly given the link to the boundary changes.

http://tinyurl.com/z6u4pnb

[ProfessorDavey]

It would be good if you reread some of this because in your emotional reaction ...

It is a bit rich talking about an emotional response, coming from you who in your response to Jakswan fails to understand that the SNP were largely seen in a negative manner in rUK. That is clearly true, and not just from those who disagree with their overall politics. The negativity was multifaceted involving:

1. Small 'c' conservatives who passionately want the UK to stay together and therefore saw the SNP as a threat.
2. Hung parliament 'worriers' who saw the presence of the SNP holding the balance of power - a party they couldn't vote either for or against, as dangerous to the interests of people outside of Scotland, on the basis that the SNP are clearly partisan.
3. Centre-left pragmatists who recognised that the rise of the SNP was damaging to the prospects of their being a centre-left government in power after the election, on the basis that the largest party would always get the chance to form the government (and most likely the governing party would get first crack) - so for there to be a centre left government Labour would need to be the largest party in terms of votes.

So perhaps the only people favouring the SNP south of the border were tories (and they weren't going to vote Labour anyhow) who saw their rise (and possibly independence) as a way of ensuring right wing government in rUK. But many of those are also in category 1.

If Labour's approach toward the SNP had been problematic in rUK, then surely it would have been felt most clearly in Wales, with its own nationalist tendencies and greatest levels of 'affection' for the goals of the SNP. But it wasn't. The change in vote share in Wales was broadly in line with the overall change - no evidence of droves of people taking Labour's approach to the SNP negatively.

[Nearly Sane]

It is a bit rich talking about an emotional response, coming from you who in your response to Jakswan fails to understand that the SNP were largely seen in a negative manner in rUK. That is clearly true, and not just from those who disagree with their overall politics. The negativity was multifaceted involving:

What does 'largely' mean here? I have argued that it was because of a negative perception by some in the rUK of the SNP that Labour (and the Lib Dems) were affected. Further that Labour in indulging the Tories in their portrayal of the SNP helped with that which undermined them and the Lib Dems in rUK as they were still seen as to close to the SNP. It also at the same time undermined them for the OPPOSITE reason  in Scotland as they were as a result seen as too close to the Tories.


You keep getting confused with the point that I am arguing that the negative effect on the Labour vote from aligning with the Tory party in terms of votes is in an active sense in Scotland, not the rUK. Since I've written this a number of times now I do think it's your emotional belief in what you think is being said rather than what is actually being said that is getting in the way.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

What does 'largely' mean here?

Evidence, not emotion NS.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207254.Poll__59__of_voters_say_Labour_SNP_government_would_be_worst_general_election_outcome/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/07/labour-snp-coalition-poll-general-election-2015_n_7741776.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11379600/English-voters-believe-Labour-SNP-coalition-will-destabilise-Britain.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-prospect-of-labour-snp-coalition-makes-one-in-four-voters-less-likely-to-10208223.html

All these newspaper articles are based on polling.

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence, not emotion NS.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207254.Poll__59__of_voters_say_Labour_SNP_government_would_be_worst_general_election_outcome/

This would be evidence of an effect that I keep on agreeing with? The emotion that I'm pointing out is that you appear unable to read what I'm saying.

So yet again for at least the 5th time - I agree that there was an affect because of some  people not wanting the SNP in govt - please reread that until you stop being unable to understand the points being made.

The effect is one that I am suggesting, again for 5th or more time Labour played into. Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.

The numbers in the first poll indicate that it needed a relatively small effect, since all the outcomes had strong disapproval ratings. It needs a 5 point swing to go from the Labour outright to the Labour SNP coalition, and given that any of the coalitions are less popular by between 2.5 and 3,5 swings, the SNP effect itself could be about 3% on that specific subject. I don't see that as 'largely' or something that a blanket generalisation, that was jakswan's position, could be made from.

I have to admit I'm getting somewhat bored with you arguing against a case that isn't being made.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.

But this is a non-sensical argument and one that comes from a fundamental lack of understanding about what was going on in England.

People in England couldn't vote for (or against) the SNP so they were inherently not going to be accountable to that electorate - they were only accountable to the electorate in Scotland. That's a big part of the issue. One of the big reasons why people in rUK were so concerned about the SNP was the fear that they would force through legislation that helped Scotland and hurt England without being accountable to those they hurt.

It didn't need to Tories (or Labour) to ramp up that argument, it was pretty obvious to anyone in a constituency where the minor party in coalition could be on that wasn't even on their ballot paper. Actually I think that Labour played a relatively straight bat with regard to the SNP - neither cosying up too much or demonising too much - certainly that's how it appeared to me from a rUK perspective.

So I don't think there is anything in your 'going along with it' argument - frankly had Labour been more overtly cosying up to the SNP they'd have found the backlash in rUK even greater than it actually was. So perhaps try to back off on the emotion and also try to actually understand what was going on in rUK, rather than trying to shoehorn what was going on in Scotland onto rUK - they are fundamentally different - predominantly because the SNP wasn't on the ballot paper in rUK.

[jakswan]

Why would you think that saying extreme right, would imply extreme left? Also There are versions of 'extreme' right that support free immigration - libertarians.

My mistake on the extreme left. The political compass libertarians could be left or right.

I've disagreed with 1 - as you originally started with a blanket assertion that the SNP were seen only one way.

Make clear you position, there is no blanket assertion in 1, either disagree with or don't. 

I have actually agreed with 2 (only I suggested the effect was not as wide you stated but relatively focused) but stated in part that was due to the Labour Party, and them not wanting to be seen as anything other than pro austerity.

Hurrah we agree to some extent.

Why do you think I would using SNP spin? I was merely asking if you were implying that the current situation of a Tory govt was deliberately aimed at by the SNP, which I thought your post seemed to imply.

It the sort of spin we see from the SNP.

Do you actually think that or is that just like Lib Dem Secretary of State happily spreading errors and lying about it?

What has that got to do with me?

[jakswan]

Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.

Also:-

1) SNP want independence to have the rUK to be seen a negative light is totally on point for them. I suppose that doesn't match your view that they are the 'good guys' and all the other politicians are the 'bad guys', sounds like your buried in what the SNP are shoveling.

2) Blanket generalisation; opinion is not purely formed by party tactics but I think you know that already.

[Nearly Sane]

Also:-

1) SNP want independence to have the rUK to be seen a negative light is totally on point for them. I suppose that doesn't match your view that they are the 'good guys' and all the other politicians are the 'bad guys', sounds like your buried in what the SNP are shoveling.

2) Blanket generalisation; opinion is not purely formed by party tactics but I think you know that already.

I'm not saying and haven't said that the SNP are the good guys. It's just your assumptions getting in the way of your comprehension.

[Nearly Sane]

But this is a non-sensical argument and one that comes from a fundamental lack of understanding about what was going on in England.

People in England couldn't vote for (or against) the SNP so they were inherently not going to be accountable to that electorate - they were only accountable to the electorate in Scotland. That's a big part of the issue. One of the big reasons why people in rUK were so concerned about the SNP was the fear that they would force through legislation that helped Scotland and hurt England without being accountable to those they hurt.

It didn't need to Tories (or Labour) to ramp up that argument, it was pretty obvious to anyone in a constituency where the minor party in coalition could be on that wasn't even on their ballot paper. Actually I think that Labour played a relatively straight bat with regard to the SNP - neither cosying up too much or demonising too much - certainly that's how it appeared to me from a rUK perspective.

So I don't think there is anything in your 'going along with it' argument - frankly had Labour been more overtly cosying up to the SNP they'd have found the backlash in rUK even greater than it actually was. So perhaps try to back off on the emotion and also try to actually understand what was going on in rUK, rather than trying to shoehorn what was going on in Scotland onto rUK - they are fundamentally different - predominantly because the SNP wasn't on the ballot paper in rUK.

This is getting weird, I write something like Labour couldn't avoid going along with the scare tactics because it would have made them look anti austerity and they would have lost more votes in rUK that way and you 'counter' that by agreeing with it. There was a concerted effort by the Tories not just to tap into any worries on the SNP in the crucial numbers that were needed but to exacerbate those.


And as per many posts earlier, what i have been suggesting is not that the Labour party were being hugely devious, but that they had ended up in a position that whatever they did they were screwed. They were tied to a pro austerity push in rUK. They were playing to different electorates and it cost them.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is getting weird, I write something like Labour couldn't avoid going along with the scare tactics because it would have made them look anti austerity and they would have lost more votes in rUK that way and you 'counter' that by agreeing with it. There was a concerted effort by the Tories not just to tap into any worries on the SNP in the crucial numbers that were needed but to exacerbate those.


And as per many posts earlier, what i have been suggesting is not that the Labour party were being hugely devious, but that they had ended up in a position that whatever they did they were screwed. They were tied to a pro austerity push in rUK. They were playing to different electorates and it cost them.

So what exactly would you recommend the Labour party should have done in rUK then NS in the run up to the general election - clearly you see what they did as wrong in relation to their attitude to the SNP. How should they have done this better then - in a manner that would have helped them take those crucial swing seats in England from the Tories that could have made all the difference.

And remember this is about their approach to the SNP, not about their broader political positioning (e.g. their position on the austerity/non austerity spectrum) which had nothing to do with the SNP.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not saying and haven't said that the SNP are the good guys. It's just your assumptions getting in the way of your comprehension.

You could have fooled me - that's exactly how your attitude comes across, and it isn't just me who sees that, is it.

[Nearly Sane]

You could have fooled me - that's exactly how your attitude comes across, and it isn't just me who sees that, is it.

Oh dear, an old ad populum argument instead of  any evidence.

[wigginhall]

Well, Sadiq Khan made me laugh with an old tweet: 'I’m the son of a bus driver. I used to love that line… then Sajid fucking Javid came along. You wait for years for the son of a Muslim bus driver to turn up and two come along at once.'

Alert!  Somebody has put in too large a link, and the page is all over the place.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland  doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear, an old ad populum argument instead of  any evidence.

Not really - when the question is whether your posts come across as partisan - i.e. proSNP (good guys) and antiLabour (well and everyone else, the bad guys) - then you have to rely on the impression made on the posters who read your posts. And given that I suspect very few people are reading them (as we don't have a massive community) and several of those who have read them feel they are, then that is a valid approach to adopt.

How else do you suggest you attempt to find out how your posts come across to those reading them?

[Nearly Sane]

Not really - when the question is whether your posts come across as partisan - i.e. proSNP (good guys) and antiLabour (well and everyone else, the bad guys) - then you have to rely on the impression made on the posters who read your posts. And given that I suspect very few people are reading them (as we don't have a massive community) and several of those who have read them feel they are, then that is a valid approach to adopt.

How else do you suggest you attempt to find out how your posts come across to those reading them?

By what is in them? I am far less anti SNP than you, and so I com across to you as pro SNP. But there isn't anything in these series of posts, I would think suggests that I actually am. Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?

[ProfessorDavey]

By what is in them? I am far less anti SNP than you, and so I com across to you as pro SNP. But there isn't anything in these series of posts, I would think suggests that I actually am. Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?

I am honest about it NS - if you read my posts you will be very clear about my views on the petty nationalism of the SNP and also that I am (at least for now) a Labour member.

You on the other hand you aren't even able to come clean about your political affiliation (whether formal member or merely voter):

'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland  doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'

If you produced any more 'fudge' you'd have to put it on a biscuit finger, cover it in chocolate and go into competition with Twix.

[ProfessorDavey]

Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?

Given that there are very few people involved in this thread then I'd suggest that is quite significant.

But maybe we should also ask Jack Knave and Rhiannon (also fairly involved in the discussions) whether thy think your posts imply you are proSNP and antiLabour. Any thoughts the two of you?

[Nearly Sane]

Given that there are very few people involved in this thread then I'd suggest that is quite significant.

But maybe we should also ask Jack Knave and Rhiannon (also fairly involved in the discussions) whether thy think your posts imply you are proSNP and antiLabour. Any thoughts the two of you?

So still no actual evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

So still no actual evidence?

Yes there is evidence - that jaks and I (at the least) have that impression.

[Nearly Sane]

I am honest about it NS - if you read my posts you will be very clear about my views on the petty nationalism of the SNP and also that I am (at least for now) a Labour member.

You on the other hand you aren't even able to come clean about your political affiliation (whether formal member or merely voter):

'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland  doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'

If you produced any more 'fudge' you'd have to put it on a biscuit finger, cover it in chocolate and go into competition with Twix.

Surely it would be in competition with 'Fudge' in that case?


On the substantive point, don't have any current affiliation. I doubt that is that unusual. That you have this in built assumption that someone must have and be arguing from that is part of your issue with assuming that everyone has to be a emotionally involved as you

[Nearly Sane]

Yes there is evidence - that jaks and I (at the least) have that impression.

There is evidence that you have that impression, I agree. Not that you are right to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely it would be in competition with 'Fudge' in that case?

No fudge from me - I've always been very clear about my political views and affiliations - namely a (for now) Labour member, although very unhappy with Corbyn, and someone who loathes the petty nationalism espoused by the SNP.

Clear enough? Unlike:

'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland  doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'

So perhaps you'd like to be a bit clearer NS - simple question, are you and SNP supporter or perhaps even a member.

[Nearly Sane]

No fudge from me - I've always been very clear about my political views and affiliations - namely a (for now) Labour member, although very unhappy with Corbyn, and someone who loathes the petty nationalism espoused by the SNP.

Clear enough? Unlike:

'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland  doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'

So perhaps you'd like to be a bit clearer NS - simple question, are you and SNP supporter or perhaps even a member.

Why did you edit out the clear statement that I don't have any current affiliation (which would rule out being a member)?

That's the sort of approach I would expect from Vlad.