GB-wide voting intentions (More in Common):
Conservatives 27%
Labour 27%
Reform UK 21%
Liberal Democrats 13%
Greens 7%
SNP 2%
During the period between the Trussmageddon and the general election, I used to occasonally squint at polls showing a dip in the huge Labour lead and wonder if we were seeing the earliest hints of a turnaround. That was never the case, and in retrospect it looks like a Labour landslide (at least in terms of seats) was inevitable from the day of Kwarteng's mini-budget. But it turns out that all that needed to happen for Labour to lose their lead was for them to actually get into power and for voters to experience the disappointment first-hand. It's surely likely to get even worse for them, because incredibly the right-wing vote is still almost evenly-split between the Tories and Reform UK, and as soon as that starts to consolidate, a Labour vote share of circa 27% will leave Starmer in an incredibly deep hole. It's the sort of vote share John Major had in the depths of his unpopularity in the mid-90s.
The fieldwork for this poll seems to have been mostly conducted before James Cleverly's shock elimination from the Tory leadership election, which Labour regarded as Christmas coming early. We'll see, but I'm not convinced that it's going to make such a difference, or at least not in the way they're banking on. A hard right Tory leader might even speed up the process of consolidating the combined Tory/Reform UK vote.
* * *
Just a quick note about the blogpost I put up yesterday before the dreadful news about Alex Salmond came in. I announced that I was taking a break from blogging to prepare properly for the Alba disciplinary hearing, which was scheduled for Thursday night, and in particular to compile my written submission, the deadline for which was tomorrow afternoon. I'm abandoning that plan, because I'm assuming the hearing is now almost certain to be postponed. That may yet prove to be a dangerous assumption, but I think it's one I have to make in the circumstances.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP FUNDRAISER 2024: I took a prolonged break from promoting the fundraiser during the general election period, but I'll have to make some serious progress over the coming days and weeks if the blog is to remain viable. Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far. Card donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, or direct donations can be made via Paypal. My Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
That combined Tory + Reform UK vote share is terrifying. If a merger ever comes about we’ll all be prisoners in Reformatory UK.
ReplyDeleteIt demonstrates the long term shift of England to the right and is indeed terrifying. You couldn't get a stronger reason for Indyref2 being a de facto referendum in 2026. The security services already have the right to break the law including killing people if it is deemed to be in the interests of the British state. They now want to extend that right to soldiers( special forces ) to kill civilians. Must have got that idea from the IDF.
DeleteIFS,
DeleteYour post is embarrassing.
And still trotting out this “de facto referendum “ nonsense. Dear oh dear.
De facto referendum is the only legal option
DeleteHas there ever been such a thing as a “de facto “ referendum?
DeleteGet the story straight, KC, according to your fellow travellers we had one as recently as July 4th.
DeleteKC it should be an embarrassment for any decent human being to accept the type of government's the English serve up for us accept in Scotland whether we like it or not.
DeleteWhat's with the dear oh dear stuff KC - are you an old English lady from the Home Counties.
Dear oh dear KC 😂 - so you say a de facto is nonsense but other Britnats say this years election was a de facto referendum.
DeleteIt's like a contest between you and the SNP trolls as to who posts the most contradictory rubbish. Currently the SNP trolls are in the lead.
Except IFS, it’s not rubbish is it?
DeleteYou know fine well independence will never be achieved through a “de facto” referendum. There’ll never be such a thing, as the only people who’d accept it would be Scottish Nationalists. Certainly Westminster, unionists or even the wider global community would never accept it! It’s just pie in the sky nonsense.
Plus of course, there’s the minor issue that only a minority of the Scottish people support independence. Time to accept this fact and move on!
PollAndBangWe poll:
DeleteShould Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 57%
No 43%
Funny sort of "minority".
IFS,
DeleteIn your own time, no rush.
The SNP trolls may be in the lead for posting the most contradictory rubbish but you KC are well out in front for repeating the same boring stuff.
DeleteAnon troll at 9.05pm - your post is clearly on the wrong blog ya numpty.
DeleteIFS@9:05, it may be the same boring stuff but it’s true.
DeleteYou’re failure to respond to my points @7:17 underlines this fact.
Desperate Dan formerly known as KC and before that as Tartan Tam I reply to your post at 7.17pm as follows:
DeleteI disagree😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Probably not the best idea to announce your assumption James. If I was McElmeny I’d hold your hearing as scheduled on the basis you are unprepared.
ReplyDeleteYou're the second person who has made that point to me today, so to be on the safe side I'll send an email to check if it's going ahead. If I do end up writing the submission, I'll have to do it at lightning speed, because the deadline I was given was 5pm tomorrow.
DeleteAh but based on your recent experience James will you get a reply to your email.
DeleteYes, I know, on refection I'm probably going to have to go ahead and write the submission, just so I don't get caught out.
DeleteTo be honest it's probably the last thing on McEleny's and the Parties mind atm. Though they should give James confirmation that it's postponed.
DeleteI suspect there will be time to allow for a period of mourning during which very few will be wanting to do anything else and then there will likely be discussions regarding the future of the Party itself.
Well, there will have to be decisions taken pretty quickly, because as I understand it an election for leader is held annually in the run-up to conference, ie. right now. Because of my suspension I'm barred from seeing the timetable for the internal elections, but I would guess they're currently in the nominations stage. Alex Salmond would almost certainly have been the sole nominee for leader. That election will either now go ahead with new candidates, in which case there will be a new leader within a month, or more likely an emergency NEC meeting will call off the leader election for the time being to give everyone space to work out the way forward. Will conference even go ahead in its planned form? Don't know.
Delete"To be honest it's probably the last thing on McEleny's and the Parties mind atm"
DeleteThat's awfully sweet of you to assume that, but in truth all that McEleny ever thinks about is who he can purge next, and how he can do it. I doubt if today is any different.
Watch the film Death of Stalin.
DeleteWhile the Alba party isn't quite in the position of Stalin's politoburo, it is broadly facing the same situation; an ugly dash for the leadership has begun. And if "good guys" like Khrushchev waste any time mourning instead of maneuvering, guys like Beria win.
Strange how we all know instantly who Beria is in this analogy.
DeleteI’m the anon at 2.42 James. Glad to hear this. Best of luck, although with recent events I wonder if ALBA can continue.
DeleteI’m very surprised more people aren’t bringing up the recent indy poll by PollAndBangWe, which has Yes on 57%.
ReplyDeletePollAndBangWe have consistently had Yes ahead in recent months, but this is the best poll so far, and clearly shows the direction of travel. People are realising Labour are no better than the Tories and obviously changing their view on independence.
We should be greatly encouraged by this poll and look ahead with real optimism.
Yes, it's highly significant.
DeleteAny chance you two chinless wonders could share your single neuron somewhere else? Thanks in advance.
DeletePollAndBangWe, 11th-12th October
DeleteAny chance you two chinless wonders could share your single neuron somewhere else?
Yes 12%
No 88%
It's actually just sad now when the same joke has been done to death... come up with some new material. Get creative with your trolling man!
DeleteOn behalf of neurons everywhere I protest at being linked with these two arseholes.
DeleteSo why do the Britnat trolls never troll the SNP trolls? and no it is not a joke.
ReplyDeleteNever mind the trolls, where’s this all going?
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or has the comment section on here turned into a cluster f**k recently?
ReplyDeleteObvious troll posts everywhere and pointless arguments dominating everything.
PollAndBangWe, 11th-12th October
DeleteIs it just me?
Yes 77%
No 23%
The UK has only 2 signatories (2 original members of you like) That is SCOTLAND and ENGLAND, with Wales finally being annexed into the kingdom of England in the year 1536, meaning that Wales has no membership in the UK as it's represented under the kingdom of England (No Welsh representative flag in union flag) and the act of union came later in 1707 . Northern Ireland got special arrangements to stay in UK in the 1921 agreement and later tweaked with the Good Friday Agreement.
ReplyDeleteThis means that the existence of the UK is 50-50 split between Scotland and England, in other words, Scotland owns half of the UKs existence rights! Despite the vast difference in populations it's 2 states forming a political union.
Both Scotland and the UK Governments and legal systems declare this union to be a VOLUNTARY UNION.
So despite any wording in the formation of the UK treaty, which cannot be deemed as definite under today's UN self determination laws, it would appear that any international court would come to the conclusion that the UK, as an entity, is HALF SCOTTISH and that Scotland has half its rights,
That is also agreed (as a VOLUNTARY political union) by all relevant sides, and therefore there should be at least one or several routes to either Scotland or England dissolving ALL or PARTS of the union and this decision can only be taken by original treaty members Scotland and England. It's very obvious that such an argument would win over support in any international court (we already know that the UK supreme court is very biased in favour of the continuation and interests of protecting and maintaining the existence of the UK)
Also if any part of the Treaty of Union was broken by either side (Scotland or England) then this has to be put right, such as Scots Law stated separate only to be overruled by a future new supreme court, or taxed separately or differently without either sides consent, and probably many other infringements ?...then just like ANY AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL TREATIES, arbitration can be called for
THESE...are paths to finding Scotland's rights and choices we may have to persuue to lead us to internationally recognised statehood
Scotland and England united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the UK. It is the Irish bit that made it the UK
DeleteSo once the Treaty is terminated, Great Britain no longer exists and Briish people become Scottish or English (yes, I know, there's also Wales and N.I). This surely is an answer to the ratifying referendum's franchise conundrum. Non-Scots could reasonably be expected to swear an oath to the Scottish Crown (i.e people) if intending to live or move here?
ReplyDelete