• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UK - December 2019 General Election

"You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."




Her actual words said that Scots "tend to vote Labour" (in Westminster). Not that they're more left-leaning, but that they, you know, vote Labour. Which is mince. If she'd wanted to say "tend to vote SNP, which is also a party of the left", she could have said that. She didn't. What she said was entirely wrong. Which is what I pointed out. It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of actual verifiable fact.

Also, considering that your first shot at a response was to try to make out that she was not numerically wrong, by posting voting figured which showed Labour in third place with a whopping 27% of the vote, apparently on the basis that the SNP only having achieved 37% of the vote didn't count (although nobody else had mentioned the SNP until then) suggests you don't believe your own new line either.

I'm struggling to understand why you seem hell-bent on dying on this particular hill, which wasn't even your hill in the first place.

When I said 'Scots tend to vote Labour in the UK' I meant England, Wales, NI, [outside of Scotland itself]. I am well aware SNP now dominate Scotland, the country.
 
I honestly don't think there's a problem with having a left-leaning Labour party again. I think it's great, in fact. And I don't think it's a problem for the general public who, in polls, seem to tend to agree with many left-leaning policies (nationalisation, for example).

The problem for me, specifically, is Corbyn.

I think it goes beyond that, Joe Public will agree with Labour policies and then mark their cross next to the Conservative candidate regardless of leader. Well, unless they have a leader who's chummy with the Murdocks. We have our own equivalent of America's 'Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires'.
 
I think trump telling Boris to form a pact with Farage will weigh against a pact.
It would look like Boris was doing trump's bidding.
 
When I said 'Scots tend to vote Labour in the UK' I meant England, Wales, NI, [outside of Scotland itself]. I am well aware SNP now dominate Scotland, the country.


Interesting reverse ferret. You'll have some evidence for this? Or even that it would matter a damn what a few people of Scottish origin voted in any English constituency?
 
Last edited:
I am at a loss as to why you don't think I should contribute to a public thread but hey ho.


More reverse ferreting. You're welcome to contribute to any thread you like. But defending factually incorrect bollocks is going to get called iut regardless. That's kind of inherent in posting to a public thread, you know.
 
Interesting reverse ferret. You'll have some evidence for this? Or even that it would matter a damn what a few people of Scottish origin voted in any English constituency?

Reread my post. I know I tend to write in shorthand but it does appear you're the only one to have miscomprehended it.

You made the point Scotland hasn't voted Labour in ten years so I am not sure why you are intent in applying a different meaning to the one I intended.

You made your clarification and that is enough.

ETA There are millions more Scots outside of Scotland than in it.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the people you're railing against also don't think their vote matters?

And in a great many cases it doesn't. But if you do go to the bother of voting it would seem like you might as well not vote to be kicked in the nuts by a Bullingdon Boy, no?

It's entirely your right to vote or not vote, but I think it's very difficult to take seriously complaints about the outcome of elections or any official parliamentary action from people who don't vote.

Which still makes no sense since the two things are entirely unconnected. It's like saying you can't complain about getting salmonella from a restaurant if you don't cook yourself or can't complain about being hit by a car if you don't drive.

My vote only affects 1/650th of the General Election in any way. And it's only 1/54000th part of the contest it does effect.

You are going to have to explain how me exerting my 1/35000000th of influence makes any difference whatsoever to being able to express a view on the government elected. Otherwise it's just parroting one of those tired old lines beloved of grumpy old white men down the pub.
 
Vixen, nobody else has construed your post in any way other than the way I did.

There are millions more Scots outside of Scotland than in it.


There are not "millions more Scots" in England, Wales and Northern Ireland than there are in Scotland. (And to get that figure even for the entire world you'd have to include the mad Yanks who claim to be Scots because their great-granny left Brigadoon in 18-oatcake.) Do stop making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Vixen, nobody else has construed your post in any way other than the way I did.




There are not "millions more Scots" in England, Wales and Northern Ireland than there are in Scotland. (And to get that figure even for the entire world you'd have to include the mad Yanks who claim to be Scots because their great-granny left Brigadoon in 18-oatcake.) Do stop making stuff up.

Why on earth would I have qualified it with the words 'Scots in the UK'. Think hard. If I had meant it the way you insist on knowing better than me what I meant I would have just said 'Scotland'. Ye ken, noo?

There are three quarters of a million Scots in the UK, outside of Scotland.
 
Maybe there are. There are also five and a half million Scots in Scotland, so wrong again.

Your original post was worded so as to indicate you were talking about how Scots vote in a UK election (as opposed to a Holyrood election), and nobody else interpreted it any differently. As I said, nice reverse ferret.

So if we assume you're right, that there are about 750,000 Scots in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that's a bit of a drop in the ocean compared to the total population of these three countries which is about 60 million. In what way is their voting tendency of any relevance at all to this election?

In any case, for all we know it's the screaming Tories who have left Scotland for more congenial company elsewhere. You can't infer that people who have moved away from Scotland will have a voting breakdown identical to those who stay behind. The chance that this small fraction of people will in any way influence the voting figured in England, Wales (or even Northern Ireland which is an entirel different kettle of fish) is non-existent.
 
Maybe there are. There are also five and a half million Scots in Scotland, so wrong again.

Your original post was worded so as to indicate you were talking about how Scots vote in a UK election (as opposed to a Holyrood election), and nobody else interpreted it any differently. As I said, nice reverse ferret.

So if we assume you're right, that there are about 750,000 Scots in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that's a bit of a drop in the ocean compared to the total population of these three countries which is about 60 million. In what way is their voting tendency of any relevance at all to this election?

In any case, for all we know it's the screaming Tories who have left Scotland for more congenial company elsewhere. You can't infer that people who have moved away from Scotland will have a voting breakdown identical to those who stay behind. The chance that this small fraction of people will in any way influence the voting figured in England, Wales (or even Northern Ireland which is an entirel different kettle of fish) is non-existent.

Social scientists and BoJo disagree with you. Voting demographics are important. London Boroughs such as Camden and the old Kilburn, Cricklewood and Willesden Green boroughs (now Brent) voted Labour despite being relatively wealthy boroughs because the one-in-three population was Irish, who traditionally vote Labour. Likewise Scots with a strong Ulster connection.

BoJo is already referring to 'Workington Man' so I see nothing offensive in analysing what demographic is going to vote for whom.

I'll let you have the last word.
 
"Scots with a strong Ulster connection" are Orangemen and they vote Tory.

I'll leave you to your fantasy demographics where 750K is more than 5.6 million and a differential voting pattern (which is all in your imagination) in a group of people making up barely more than 1% of the population is somehow critical to the outcome.
 
Farage is demanding the Tories drop the Brexit agreement and go for a 'clean break' as condition of a pact.
He wants the Tories to become the Brexit Party.
It's not going to happen.

I don't think Farage wanted it to happen. If he genuinely wanted a deal he would have met with Johnson in private and there would probably have been a 'gentleman's agreement'(for lack of a better term) to tank the Brexit plan and get a no deal. But of course an actual Brexit is the last thing Farage wants. The leave vote in the referendum was a disaster for Farage, UKIP imploded and his political career was dead in the water until May started floundering. He's a one trick pony who knows full well his influence is gone the moment Brexit happens. So he makes an offer that Johnson has to reject for ego if nothing else and then claims its Johnson's fault if we end up heading for a 2nd referendum, while popping the champagne at the prospect of being relevant for another year or two.
 
Bit of a stooshie going on in Scotland about whether the Greens should give way to SNP in marginal seats where a Tory might sneak in. I'm kind of in two minds about it, on one hand I don't think the SNP have any right to expect the Greens to help them out, on the other the Greens have no chance of getting an MP, are already giving way to Labour in parts of England, and them stepping aside could make a difference in seats where the majorities are tiny (double figures in some cases)

Its also complicated by the fact that the Greens presence in the Scottish Parliament is in no small amount thanks to SNP voters giving them their second vote so they probably don't want to annoy SNP voters.
 
Boris Johnson has rejected the suggestion from Nigel Farage and Donald Trump that he should work with the Brexit Party during the election.

The Tory leader told the BBC he was "always grateful for advice" but he would not enter into election pacts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50264395

Good. The PM makes a rare good decision. Lets hope he is not lying and he sticks to his decision.
 
I think it goes beyond that, Joe Public will agree with Labour policies and then mark their cross next to the Conservative candidate regardless of leader. Well, unless they have a leader who's chummy with the Murdocks. We have our own equivalent of America's 'Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires'.

I think that depends on the leader. Tony Blair got a landslide, in part due to his image as someone young, vibrant, and cool. Remember all the stars of the day lining up to go to parties at 10 Downing Street? Remember him playing guitar with Noel Gallagher? Remember it all being part of "cool Britannia"?

I think people are staying away from Labour for a few reasons, chiefly - distrust of Corbyn and his competence, the sense of extreme division within the party, the focus on Antisemitism within the party, and the successful painting of policies that most people agree with as being extreme.

I think a new leader who came across as dynamic and competent could mitigate every single one of those. Corbyn, obviously, because he would no longer be leader, they could be seen to unite the party behind them, they could paint the Antisemitism as being due to Corbyn and something that they've dealt with, and I think that the last point would sort itself out largely on its own if the leader were someone that people could believe in because they already agree with the policies and because they'd want to believe in the leader.

The country's a mess and people are in a bad way. There's two ways to leverage that to gain power. The first is what the Brexiteers are doing - playing on people's fears by blaming an external "other" that will be excluded by the party policy (in this case, taking back our green and pleasant land from those filthy foreigners). The second is to paint the woes as due to the policies of everybody before you, and promise that you know how to make it better.

Both can work, but the latter requires someone with a force of personality Corbyn doesn't have, and someone without Corbyn's baggage.

If the Labour party could find someone like that, they'd be quids in, I think. Not going to happen for a few reasons, but that'd be the way to sell Labour policy to the public and get them on side.
 
It's like saying you can't complain about getting salmonella from a restaurant if you don't cook yourself or can't complain about being hit by a car if you don't drive.

It's more like saying that you can't be taken seriously in your complaints about hating the food at McDonald's if, when asked for your opinion on where to get food from, you said "anywhere's fine".

You're choosing not to have a say. Which is fine, but then makes later bitching about things not having gone your way empty.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom