I try not to be harsh but the problem here is EVERYONE who has spent time on this issue dismisses idea of it working in Scotland.
Indeed I’ve done so since years for the very obvious reason:
Scottish voters cleave two ways:
Unionism/Indy
Prog/conservative
So..
So for someone to use Scotland as an argument for “why a prog alliance wouldn’t work” is basically saying that he hasn’t been paying attention.
Nobody working on this uses Scotland.
Secondly…
The author implies that a prog alliance wouldn’t work everywhere.
True.
But most sensible people know this.
Something like 80 seats is enough and labour would continue to stand in majority of these while the pay off for libDems in Circa 25 seats would be massive.
Thirdly…
Then he says this runs risk of letting Tories in anyway as voters won’t follow alliance advice.
This is silly as most prog alliance seats are Tory held anyway & a PA focusses on specific seats.
And at this point I normally drop the Ynys Mon card.
This is an open goal here.
In other words this is a very silly article that looks like it was rushed out in a couple of hours due to an editor asking for an article after a by election surprise.
& written by someone who looks like he’s never really given this subject much thought until the last 48 hours.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A number of Conservative MPs in southern “LibDem facing” seats have already told Conservative HQ they believe their 2019 election results “won’t be repeated” as the fear of Jeremy Corbyn getting in suppressed LibDem votes at the last election.
1/
Tory MPs in these areas think Starmer is effectively copying the 1997 election strategy whereby soft Tory areas go LibDem.
While “defusing” the Brexit issue in leave voting trad. labour seats where Tory gains in midland/north are expected to melt as Tory-Brexit reality sets in.
3/
Also the logic is that the demographic/social change in places like SW London & Buckinghamshire was already going on before Brexit but that Corbyn “suppressed” this vote.
In other words quite a large number of southern leafy seats are “ready to drop” with the right strategy.
There's basically 3 ways a UK govt can show its population “Brexit was the right choice”
1. A post-Brexit UK economic boom 2. EU collapses
Nobody sane thinks the 1st will happen, while the 2nd is extremely unlikely & beyond UK’s control in any case. Which leaves one other way…
2/
The other option would be to engineer continual grievance with, & of, the EU…& Europeans in general.
In this scenario “Brexit can never be finished” as otherwise this would not enable it’s eternal struggle against Europeans attempt to “thwart British success”.
3/
One suspects therefore that even if the Irish protocol didn’t exist, the UK govt would have to invent another issue to consume the populace.
As a Brexit that is finished…is one that is shown to have not delivered what was promised.
It was clear LibDems were going to do well. But I have to be honest I had it down as neck & neck - not this.
I’m guessing as well as superb tactical discipline by Labour voters, analysis will show young (ie under 40s) Conservative vote now much softer than I thought.
A lot of people have dismissed the change of Israeli govt as irrelevant but as I’ve been saying for sometime Israel is rapidly moving toward a “3 thirds society”: 1. Haredi Jews 2. Israeli Arabs 3. Everyone else
The past politics *largely* based within (3) will be unsustainable.
Of course Israeli govts have depended on votes of 1st 2 groups before - but govts without them were always possible.
Soon tho Israel will reach the point that only be combining “everyone else” can a govt function without Haredi or Arab votes.
But there’s another scenario…
3/
Israeli govts will at this point start to have only 2 models:
1. Govt coalitions which will be half Haredi
or 2. Govt coalitions which will be half Arab
And then israeli politics will start to get *really* interesting..
In 1995 the Serbian film „Подземље“ (Underground) was released & was a modest, if slightly controversial success.
I liked the film as a comedy about people trapped underground in an absurdist reality appealed to me.
& then recently I realised the film was really about..Britain.
Underground is loveable crudity, slapstick & serious ideas about truth. The main character, an arms dealer, hits on the idea to convince people sheltering in a basement during WW II making weapons to fight the Germans…to believe the war is still going on…long after its ended.
3/
As Marko oversees the weapons manufacturing he is able to control time by adding hours to a day so the people in the cellar think that only 15 years passed since WW II instead of 20. They're continuously making weapons, and with this eternal labour supply he becomes rich.