This felt to me like a rather snooty 'down your nose' analysis of Reform voters. Capriciously prioritizing issues you see as unimportant and spoiling your wee local issue with the SNP. I'm reminded of John McInroe's "You cannot be serious!"
Perhaps it might do you and us all, some good to try and understand what made people vote Reform. Without resorting to the implication that they are careless or stupid with a taste for impishly making trouble for serious minded individuals like yourself.
Dick, we know that Reform voters tend to be disillusioned Tories. Given this fact, I think it's clear (and not condescending) to point out these disillusioned tories just voted for a party that, in Scotland, is dominated by pro-indy leaders and in some cases candidates too. I am willing to bet lots of dosh these voters had Nigel Farage in their mind as they cast a vote for Reform (letting the SNP hold onto seats) not aware they were not voting for a party remotely committed to the union.
I don't a focus group to understand who reform voters generally are and what their issues are (they don't think the tories are tory enough)
Reform voters also tend to be disillusioned Labour voters too. And do you know what? There'll be a lot more of them in short order!
And Yes! You do need a focus group to understand who Reform voters are. You may also need a lot more! "The English tradition of conservatism is shrivelling" You said a few weeks ago. No! It is considering its options. It is in an interesting turmoil.
The possible interpretation of your comments as condescending "had Nigel Farage in their mind", and the single issue "don't think the Tories are Tory enough" feels like a rather crass generalisation. Where do you think those of us from that rich tradition have gone? Down a hole? Joined a Trappist monastery *? It makes your assessment appear like "they are all retards". That's what irked me.
At this election many Conservatives were considerably more disgruntled by the liberal Conservatives than the lower risk spent force that is the SNP. Given that it seemed certain that we would have a Labour majority, then who actually became the MP in any one constituency didn't matter for conservatives. It was an ineffectual SNP or another unit of Labour lobby fodder. The vote was about signalling to the remains of the Conservatives and the other right wing offers. As Farage clearly signalled, this was the start of the 2029 campaign.
More importantly, in 2019 the Conservatives put together a really interesting coalition based upon the tension between "globalism and cosmopolitanism" on the one hand and "nationalism and ethnic or cultural particularism" on the other. Choosing the second of those. This was moving the main pole of difference in political terms from "Free markets" vs "Government intervention" to this new area. It worked well electorally in 2019. Could you say a British Gaullist approach? The party, led by Boris and others then trashed this offer, comprehensively. That could still be put together again. The most complex and interesting area of UK politics is the right.
And remember Labour only got the same votes as last time. So that big majority is fragile.
So actually those voters you imply are "not aware" may well have made a rather important and sophisticated decision using the only blunt tool that they had. And who are you to say they were right or wrong not to give a hoot about the sinking ship that is the SNP? Maybe they were more concerned about "Whither conservatism?"
That is one analysis Dean, another could be that the SNP maintained a fairly respectable 30% vote share despite their perceived problems. Labours vote share only increased in Scotland. Can labour hold onto those gains once pro independence voters that backed Starmer realise that he is going to offer them nothing?
I fully anticipate Starmer will put Douglas Alexander back into government, promoting him fast. Alexander was placed in SLabours No1 target seat for a reason, to ensure a visibly 'Scottish' presence is at the heart of the government. So clearly Labour are concerned as you say about these pro-indy labour voters in the future. Unsure what the future holds, but SNP are likely to face another drubbing soon in Holyrood so doubt the nationalists will be in a position to capitalise looking forward for the next two-three years.
Alexander is new labour through and through. No doubt he is a big gun but not sure he will woo pro indy voters. That said, the SNP need to convince the lost voters that independence is still on the table. Not sure how they are gonna do that.
Hi Dean,
Im sorry the presence of Reform irritates you.
This felt to me like a rather snooty 'down your nose' analysis of Reform voters. Capriciously prioritizing issues you see as unimportant and spoiling your wee local issue with the SNP. I'm reminded of John McInroe's "You cannot be serious!"
Perhaps it might do you and us all, some good to try and understand what made people vote Reform. Without resorting to the implication that they are careless or stupid with a taste for impishly making trouble for serious minded individuals like yourself.
Dick, we know that Reform voters tend to be disillusioned Tories. Given this fact, I think it's clear (and not condescending) to point out these disillusioned tories just voted for a party that, in Scotland, is dominated by pro-indy leaders and in some cases candidates too. I am willing to bet lots of dosh these voters had Nigel Farage in their mind as they cast a vote for Reform (letting the SNP hold onto seats) not aware they were not voting for a party remotely committed to the union.
I don't a focus group to understand who reform voters generally are and what their issues are (they don't think the tories are tory enough)
Reform voters also tend to be disillusioned Labour voters too. And do you know what? There'll be a lot more of them in short order!
And Yes! You do need a focus group to understand who Reform voters are. You may also need a lot more! "The English tradition of conservatism is shrivelling" You said a few weeks ago. No! It is considering its options. It is in an interesting turmoil.
The possible interpretation of your comments as condescending "had Nigel Farage in their mind", and the single issue "don't think the Tories are Tory enough" feels like a rather crass generalisation. Where do you think those of us from that rich tradition have gone? Down a hole? Joined a Trappist monastery *? It makes your assessment appear like "they are all retards". That's what irked me.
At this election many Conservatives were considerably more disgruntled by the liberal Conservatives than the lower risk spent force that is the SNP. Given that it seemed certain that we would have a Labour majority, then who actually became the MP in any one constituency didn't matter for conservatives. It was an ineffectual SNP or another unit of Labour lobby fodder. The vote was about signalling to the remains of the Conservatives and the other right wing offers. As Farage clearly signalled, this was the start of the 2029 campaign.
More importantly, in 2019 the Conservatives put together a really interesting coalition based upon the tension between "globalism and cosmopolitanism" on the one hand and "nationalism and ethnic or cultural particularism" on the other. Choosing the second of those. This was moving the main pole of difference in political terms from "Free markets" vs "Government intervention" to this new area. It worked well electorally in 2019. Could you say a British Gaullist approach? The party, led by Boris and others then trashed this offer, comprehensively. That could still be put together again. The most complex and interesting area of UK politics is the right.
And remember Labour only got the same votes as last time. So that big majority is fragile.
So actually those voters you imply are "not aware" may well have made a rather important and sophisticated decision using the only blunt tool that they had. And who are you to say they were right or wrong not to give a hoot about the sinking ship that is the SNP? Maybe they were more concerned about "Whither conservatism?"
Enjoy the focus groups!
* Possibly a good idea!!!
That is one analysis Dean, another could be that the SNP maintained a fairly respectable 30% vote share despite their perceived problems. Labours vote share only increased in Scotland. Can labour hold onto those gains once pro independence voters that backed Starmer realise that he is going to offer them nothing?
I fully anticipate Starmer will put Douglas Alexander back into government, promoting him fast. Alexander was placed in SLabours No1 target seat for a reason, to ensure a visibly 'Scottish' presence is at the heart of the government. So clearly Labour are concerned as you say about these pro-indy labour voters in the future. Unsure what the future holds, but SNP are likely to face another drubbing soon in Holyrood so doubt the nationalists will be in a position to capitalise looking forward for the next two-three years.
Alexander is new labour through and through. No doubt he is a big gun but not sure he will woo pro indy voters. That said, the SNP need to convince the lost voters that independence is still on the table. Not sure how they are gonna do that.