‘Labour voters have already tucked themselves up behind the Conservatives’

Commenting on the Conservative hold in Galloway and West Dumfries, Professor Ailsa Henderson says:

Labour voters have already tucked themselves up behind the Conservatives to prop up the Conservatives in a way. There is a smaller swing between Labour and the Conservatives because that swing happened last time. We are seeing smaller swings in the seats already held by Unionist parties. That is an example of that in Galloway and West Dumfries.

I don’t suppose the prof intended to stimulate the image many of us can now see but for folk who profess a fondness for progressive policies on welfare and tax to be prepared to vote for a party long-committed to the preservation of inequality and grinding poverty, the image is unavoidably disgusting anyway.

It’ll take more than a post-vote shower to remove that stench in their nostrils.

32 thoughts on “‘Labour voters have already tucked themselves up behind the Conservatives’

    1. Depending upon who the “rotten bunch” are that’s maybe a little harsh.

      If you mean the party leaders/activists who are doing it for their own ends, fire away.

      If you mean the people who were persuaded to change their voting habit to “protect their country”, I think that’s a little unfair.

      I read many comments from people saying they’d “hold their nose and vote SNP” because they thought they were the only party big enough to achieve Independence. Perhaps those who don’t understand the scale of the problem, or believe it’s nice in theory but impractical – or even those who genuinely believe in union no matter what as passionately as those commenters believe in Independence – held their noses too.

      I think they’re under-informed. The FM has said throughout that such people need to be persuaded but I believe they need to be informed. And it needs to start NOW. Not as part of a campaign, but so that everybody has the full picture.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. I appreciate I can come across as being a bit overly assertive and possibly even a bit pious, banging on about the significance and necessity of ethical reasoning. The thing is, I can’t help being trained to support bio-cognitive individuality and open democracy, by combining the cognitive and social sciences with clinical psychiatry and legal theory, and stuff. Though that was a long time ago, so I’m still too chicken to submit an essay for approval. đŸ˜‰

    Law’s Autonomy and Moral Reason
    https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/8/1/6/htm

    Like

  2. There is a T and F transposed in your and Alisa’s headline point, but otherwise yes indeed this will anger many, including along the border who held to democracy prevailing, this time the jiggery-pokery will be revealed in the analysis, that thin blue line is grows thinner despite all the bluster.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. But it has always been a trick to have three unionist political parties in Scotland, as we have seen over the years they team up with each other to keep England in control of us.
    There is no difference between Labour Conservative and Lib Dem.
    Yes there are people who are fooled by it
    But the main consort are english people living in Scotland who naturally want england to continue controlling Scotland
    You can you sell your house in england and buy a bigger better house in Scotland with half the money then retire at fifty and live on the remaining proceeds knowing that you have a vote in continuing this farce because england has a population ten times that of Scotland , its just like the dhondt voting system they gave us , we can never win and we can never change things unless we tear up the english rule book and make our own rules.

    Like

    1. Terence, There was a Panelbase poll last week, flagged up by James Kelly @SGP, where the breakdown of voting intention, by the English born, had the SNP in the lead on 35%. Factor in Green support at 4% and your anti English rhetoric doesn’t hold much water.

      Yes, there is a pro Union majority amongst that particular constituency, but it’s from the issue you’re trying to make it out to be.

      You’ve been spouting this nativist, blood and soil guff for years. It’s time you put it to bed, permanently.

      Like

    2. It’s an interesting one. It would be good to know the % of voters from England voting in any particular way…certainly many are inclined to cling to the status quo, well off comfy lives. In 2014, I had a few Scottish friends who voted no, staunch Labour folk, most English friends who voted yes.

      The houses thing is a concern though, I did read that someone who’s wife worked at a housing estate agent thing said that most houses sold were bought by English people, I guess many moving into Scotland. Since Covid in our area of Edinburgh, I suspect that has gone up, but, look a the result in Edin central! Fantastic.

      So it’s not as black and white as it might seem.

      It’s still depressing that the support for indy is not higher…imo the SNP need to point out the huge failings and destructive BritNats’ policies, and how their branch offices in Scotland would not do anything different. The SNP need to point out what the damage of more years of terrible austerity and selling off the NHS etc will do to Scotland.

      That is a black and white situation, they need to make sure people know what’s ahead if they choose to stay in the UK, it won’t be pretty for them or their young folk. For a start, the Tories will introduce national service, sell off the SNHS and Scottish water pronto, anyway, their far right wing ‘policies’ are terrifying and people need to know just how scary the future is under forever Tory/red Tory rule.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. OT, though not completely.

    British Labour may be a bin fire and Scottish Labour a figment of marketing management, but I note that the Times is suggesting that it’s Tory pragmatism that makes them electable. The thing is, without recourse to ethical reason, pragmatism is simply arbitrary opportunism.

    The Times is also suggesting that those who support EU membership are akin to being “colonialists nostalgic for the Raj”. Now that’s a twist and a half. Brexit is the result of a long-incubating post-colonial malaise that now afflicts English/British culture. One that threatens to erase Scotland’s constitutional distinctiveness and potential to make authentic contribution to the evolution of the Natural law. Which would be a crime against humanity, not just Scotland.

    https://archive.discoversociety.org/2016/06/01/ukip-brexit-and-postcolonial-melancholy/

    Like

  5. A person who once had an influential position in the YES movement pointed out several years ago that in Scotland Labour is a Right Wing party. So perhaps not too big a jump in shifting from Labour to Tory. . . . .

    Liked by 3 people

  6. It is so annoying the unionists get in on the list. 1million SNP vote’s wasted. Second preference go in the bin to let 3rd unionists in. Just despicable. Scotland would be Independent now without D’Hond’t.

    Johnston wants to talk now. After ignoring Scotland. To try and thwart Independence. To try and keep Scotland tied to corrupt Westminster. Disappointing ALBA did not do better. Next time.

    Like

    1. I’m glad Alba didn’t have an effect on the SNP list vote.

      I can’t agree with you about D’Hondt, though. I understand that it isn’t the primary reason the system was chosen, but surely it’s a reflection of the will of the whole electorate? Even though that includes the ones we don’t agree with? Agreed, by my reckoning there are too many WM-led Lab/ConDem, but there’s an overwhelming majority of pro-Indy seats

      If anything, it shows the scale of the challenge. Many of the people who voted WOULD NOT VOTE YES in INDYREF2.

      UK voters would argue that the vote count for non-tory parties was much higher than that for the 80 seat majority. And that situation doesn’t allow them to be heard at all. In short, if the UK GE had used some sort of PR, we might not be in anything like the mess we are now.

      In the light of that, I find comments like Gordon’s and Terence’s a bit disturbing.

      “Scotland would be Independent now without D’Hond’t.”
      YES, we could do what the johnson’s doing and use an overwhelming majority via FPTP to force Independence of people, just like Brexit was forced on Scotland, NI and Gibraltar.

      ” its just like the dhondt voting system they gave us , we can never win and we can never change things unless we tear up the english rule book and make our own rules.”
      Sounds awfully like the EU is holding us back with petty-fogging rules. Let’s leave, tear up their rule book and make our own. It’s the only way to prosper.

      I’m NOT saying that’s what you mean, but think. Having heard that about Brexit, can you really blame soft NOers for hesitating to throw themselves behind any movement that even SEEMS to be saying the same?
      Better the devil you know, oerhaps?

      OTOH. if WM uses the fact that there isn’t a written constitution, only a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and they never claimed to be gentlemen, what’s sauce for the goose…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t mean 1st past the post would be a sound basis for Independence.
        D Hondt was installed in the hopes of ensuring a toothless talking shop but the people of Scotland are making sure these hopes are not fulfilled. An unequivocal majority for YES in the referendum is what is required for independence not a party majority in the parliament.

        Like

        1. I agree. In fact, I find we’re very often on roughly the same wave length, which is why I was a bit surprised that you seemed to be saying what I thought you were!

          Also, yes, we need an unequivocal YES vote – which is why I think it’s useful to have an indication of how many would vote No. Hopefully, though, many of those voting Labour, at least, are voting for policies but, being left-leaning would vote YES. Hopefully isn’t enough, though, IMO.

          To me, it tends to reinforce the FM’s attitude – frustrating though it may be to have to take the longer trail. Esp given WM’s shenanagins.

          Liked by 2 people

  7. I noticed one of the commenters on the beeb explaining how Scotlabs were kind of stuck. Many want Independence, but WMlab says NO. Wasn’t it time to, as you say, break away and form a separate party.

    By “traitors”, I hope you’re referring to party activists? Probably, many long-term Labour voters don’t even stop to think where their party’s HQ is. It’s Scottish isn’t it? They also face the same dilemma as English voters. If your views differ too radically from SNP/Greens, you’re left with the same 3 parties as at WM. And that’s very much “And what flavour of tory would you like, sir/madam? In addition to blue, we also stock red or orange…”

    Party members and officials OTOH…

    Saw some ‘Young’ party members being interviewed not too long ago. The Young Labour in particular, but even some of the tories, realised that their party HAD to change its attitude to Independence. In Labour’s case because they knew that many voters wanted it – including them!

    Like

  8. 1 million SNP votes lost on list votes. A total waste. That is the D’Hond’t system.

    Gove lying through his teeth, Disgusting.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Isn’t the English government imposed ‘D’Hondt system in Scotland, just a form of ‘D’Hondt? I read it’s not exactly like the system used say in Germany. I could be wrong, if not maybe it needs some further discussion?
      The English Labour (?) government did not impose the system of their choice for democratic reasons, but because they looked into their large crystal ball and knew that it would be one way to ensure the SNP could not
      be a majority party at Holyrood, because that would mean one thing, independence.

      Does any other nation in the UK use the same system? If not why not.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Genuine query – not just for Gordon, though I’ve quoted his comment.

    “1 million lost SNP 2nd votes”

    I’m still a bit hazy on the finer points of D’Hondt! How are the million votes lost?

    I know they don’t translate into seats if you have a high number of Constituency seats, but do they count towards the total vote percentage figures?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Brexit vote was illegal. The vote was manipulated. It was gerrymandered. The lies told. Facebook details were illegally accessed to target voters. Along with the illegal adverts and illegal donations. Cambridge Analytica. Companies fined. Breaking electoral rules, breaking data protection Law. Hedge funds donating to Brexit to make £Billions.

    MSM is so annoying. Claiming there was not SNP majority without mentioning the million wasted Indy votes. Ignorance and arrogant beyond belief.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. 1million 2nd preference SNP votes are lost. Not included. There is a quota. Once the quota is reached. The highest no of constituency seats. Any further 2nd votes are discarded. That lets the unionists in. It was introduced without a mandate by unionists. Councils STV. Same carry on.

    Like

  12. Tweeted by Philip Sim from the BBC

    After all the discussion of Holyrood’s electoral system, it has done what it was designed to – SNP get just under half of the vote, and just under half of the seats. Tories get 23.5% of the “party vote”, and 24% of the seats, to Labour’s 19% of the list vote and 17% of the seats.

    Seems to me that the idea votes are lost or wasted isn’t the case if this is true, but happy to be corrected if wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. OT

    Further to Gordon Dangerfield’s “letter to a friend”, British nationalism and gender woo-woo are pretty much the same ideological position, as both outlooks deny ontological reality. In order to do so, both arbitrarily disregard the natural rights of a culturally subourdinated Other, in a manner that pretty much destroys the ontological security and epistemological value of the culturally subourdinated. In doing so, both outlooks disregard the existing fabric of law, and undermine international human rights law in the process.

    Westminster is intensely hostile towards the principles of Natural law jurisprudence, as the Moral law challenges the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. So standing under Westminster has severely disabled Scots law’s capacity to defend itself from ideological attack. Which leaves Scotland’s public vulnerable to ideological colonisation.

    Natural Law and the Problem of Postmodern
    Epistemology
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58826431(dot)pdf

    Like

  14. To put that another way, the potential for open democracy is under extreme threat in Scotland, from two cult-like belief systems that have difficulty tolerating difference, consider might to be right, and silence the marginalised through the law, as they are relieved of their legal rights associated with a legally defensible identity. Fascism for short.

    The Ontological Foundations for Natural Law
    Theory and Contemporary Ethical Naturalism
    http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=dissertations_mu

    Like

  15. Philip Sim obviously does not know about the 1 million SNP second preference votes lost. False proportional representation. A self fulfilling prophecy. It should be about who people want to vote. Who they can vote out and in. Not an opposite system to reflect number of votes. The % depends on how many parties and candidates stand. Not how votes can be disregarded. 2nd preference votes go in the bin to let 3rd rate losers in.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “second preference votes ..” This is not the first time btl here today that candidly I have NOT recognised the PR system for the Scottish Parliamentary elections in a couple of comments.

      We do NOT have a system of ‘second preference’ voting: rather we vote for ‘additional members’ via our list vote. We express our preference (one and only one) for a party and/or candidate on each of two ballot papers: (a) our constituency vote; and also (b) our list vote.

      The latter is decidedly NOT for a ‘second preference’. I voted for my first preference on both ballot papers. Voting for different parties on each ballot papers is of course possible but there is NO recognition of a ‘second preference’ in how the results are determined! Use of the term ‘second preference’ is IMHO wrong, confusing and unhelpful,

      Liked by 2 people

  16. The first is the constituency vote. The second is the list. Voting twice. What ever you want to call it. Voting for one party on the constituency and the list. Can mean the second ie list vote. So second (preference vote so called) can be wasted. If the majority vote for the winning party in the constituency vote.

    The system is gamed to be PR by discarding millions of votes. The system is self perpetuating to match votes to proportional by ignoring millions of votes. That is not democracy. It is fraud.

    The system creates the proportional representation as more important than who people want to vote in and vote out. With the list it is more difficult to vote out.
    The % FPTP, ie one vote is decided by how many parties or candidates stand for election. That is considered not to be fair but it is just a statistic. Depending on how many candidates or parties stand. Irrelevant. Voters can vote in who they want. Vote out who they do not want. More representational. Than discarding a million votes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.