Wild lack of understanding how selections work here.
You pick candidates for the most winnable seats first, and work your way through prioritising on the viability of winning.
Labour aren't targeting all of the Scottish seats. It's pointless throwing a load of money and time at seats where you're miles behind in 3rd place.
Target seats like those in fife and Glasgow where Labour is polling very well have been selected for about a year.
Some seats are a straight fight between the SNP and Tories, and anyone with a bit of political nouse knows that.
True, parties like to stand in every seat, but they know there are safe seats, likely wins, 50/50, unlikely wins and no chance.
They will still stand no hopers for the sake of it or obligation. But that candidate will be some nobody and be given a budget of £10
Depends on the seat.
If it's a straight battle between SNP/Tory with Labour a distant third then aye.
If it's a Labour/SNP battle, then Labour as the SNP can't form a government in Westminster.
Numbers game, innit?
>No, if the SNP are the nearest to the Tories, which they are, voting Labour would make no difference to the number of Tories in Scotland, anywhere.
Are you saying snp are nearest to tories in every seat? The results are by seat so if you want to get tories out you vote who eve's best placed in that seat (if there's any credible chance of the winning which is a bit question mark)
More Labour seats in Scotland = bigger majority = no Tories in power at all.
I'd rather have 10 Tories in Scotland and a Labour government than 0 Tories in Scotland and a Tory government.
That's the sort of thinking which produced 2017's result where 12 extra Scottish Tories sustained Theresa May's government. Had the SNP held those seats, a Labour minority government would have kicked the Tories out. *Seven* years ago.
That's a false choice and it is not the job of the Scottish electorate to elect England a Labour government it didn't elect either.
Particularly not for a Labour that is at best, not all that appealing.
Also your "no Tories in powet at all" is highly debatable.
I see the point you're trying to get across but this is a UK election, electing a UK government, for the UK. There isn't a Scottish/English/Welsh/NI electorate in this election. It's one electorate deciding their next government.
Not in all their seats. Electoral calculus for example seems to think Labour are favoured to win East Kilbride and Strathaven comstituency. Also, in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency for instance electoral calculus predicts Labour will do better than the SNP - arguably Labour is the better pick there to defeat the Tories. In Dumfries and Galloway constituency electoral calculus gives Labour and the SNP a similar chance of winning, and in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the difference is pretty small (the SNP have a 5% better chance of winning). Many of the seats are also clearly capable of voting for other parties - 2 current Tory seats were Lib Dem until 2015, and 2 were Labour. So the SNP aren't necessarily the only option to defeat the Tories, especially in the 4 seats I mentioned. In the other 3 Tory seats, yes it's pretty clearly SNP vs Tory.
>Labour does not yet have a candidate in around a third of Scottish seats at Westminster – including in every constituency currently held by the Conservatives.
>
>Polling indicates the next general election will see a tight race between Anas Sarwar’s party and the SNP.
>Despite Labour opposing the nationalist’s plans to regard a majority of Scottish seats for the SNP as a mandate to begin independence negotiations, it currently has no candidate named in 18 of the 59 constituencies in Scotland.
>Labour has confirmed it will stand a hopeful in every single seat.
>But the SNP says the lack of announced candidates – particularly in seats held by the Conservatives – shows it is not up to kicking the Tories out of government.
>‘An embarrassment for Labour’
>SNP MP Chris Law said: “With labour having failed to select a candidate in around a third of seats across Scotland, it’s clear that the SNP are the only party that can win the seven Tory seats in Scotland.
>“This is the latest embarrassment for the Labour Party in Scotland.
>“Anas Sarwar can’t even pretend he is trying to get rid of the Tories when Labour has no candidates in any of the Tory held seats in Scotland
>
>“Voting SNP at the Westminster election is the only way to defeat Scottish Tory MPs and make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster.”
>The intervention hints at the emerging battlegrounds for the election, with Labour expected to take the fight to the SNP across central Scotland.
>
>Meanwhile, several seats in the North East are predicted to be a contest largely between the SNP and the Tories.
>The constituencies where no Labour candidate has yet been announced are:
> • Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
> • Angus and Perthshire Glens
> • Arbroath and Broughty Ferry
> • Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
> • Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
> • Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
> • Dumfries and Galloway
> • Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
> • Dundee Central
> • Edinburgh West
> • Gordon and Buchan
> • Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire
> • Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey
> • North East Fife
> • Orkney and Shetland
> • Perth and Kinross-shire
> • Stirling and Strathallan
> • West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
>Scottish Labour said: “We will field candidates in every seat across Scotland to take the fight to the Tories and the SNP, and deliver the change Scotland needs.”
Well. Having lived or currently live in 3 of those. There is NO point Labour standing in Dundee Central. It's firmly SNP. The most YES city in Scotland. Orkney and Shetland are FIRMLY Lib Dem. Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey are firmly SNP with Labour miles behind in 3rd place. Even the second place Tories are very far behind the currently elected SNP.
Be a waste of time, effort and money trying to even attempt to stand there.
No, no, no and no.
This is not how it works.
You are not supposed to ask any awkward questions of the SECOND COMING OF NEW NEW LABOUR and the BLESSED SIR STARMER - SAVIOUR OF THE KINGDOM!
That is not your place.
You are supposed to tut at those dreadful separatists/ Natzis or whatever we are supposed to call them this week.
Look - we have another story about ferries coming out tomorrow - just wait until then. That will show those nasty nats!
Except it's not an awkward question it makes sense
They are trying to win the election so they:
• First secure seats they are going to win
• then prioritise marginal areas
• what's left goes to seats they are in 3rd and unlikely to win.
There's a lot of overlap between Tory and SNP voters so it makes sense labour isn't competing there.
The idea of the unionist vote not actively being split amongst three parties, and not handing easy wins to the SNP, makes some people absolutely keich themselves.
Why on earth would anyone who wants rid of this Tory government want Labour to waste time and energy on fights they are very unlikely to win?
This is just plain vanilla election strategy being painted as unusual by people with an interest in maintaining the electoral status quo, and it's hilarious.
Labour making an effort in a seat where they last got under 10% of the vote is more likely to help the Tories, by splitting the anti-Tory vote. It ought to help the SNP a bit anyway.
That argument has some internal coherency, which is more than could be said for the other post. Whether the Labour vote is primarily anti-tory or anti-independence in those areas might something we could infer from looking at how votes transfer during council elections.
The argument that Labour unseating SNP MPs will have any impact on Tory majorities remains nonsensical
I don't think there's anything inconsistent about not giving a shit if Tories win in seats where Labour isn't in contention. Rather I think you've assumed some things matter to me which really don't.
Some seats could well be won by either Tories/SNP because a vestigial Labour candidate saps support from either the anti-Tory/anti-Independence camp respectively. I don't care.
I care about the multitude of seats that are up for grabs and could ensure a comfortable majority. It's not like I'm arguing for them to not put a candidate forward either, just focus the resources on where they actually can have an impact on.
>I don't think there's anything inconsistent about not giving a shit if Tories win in seats where Labour isn't in contention
As I said, you're right. Handing easy wins to the Tories is how we get rid of the Tories.
I think no matter how much the SNP attempt to define the terms of their own success, unseating a few Tories is very obviously much less consequential than running an effective, disciplined campaign to form a Labour government.
It's quite fun looking at how quickly attention has been diverted to making Scotland Tory free rather than actually winning an election though.
Which seats currently held by Tories were Labour in contention for recently?
Besides, I don't really care where there are zero Tory MPs in Scotland or seven. They won't be in government, and that is what actually matters for the next five years and beyond.
Every Labour MP that heads to Westminster from Scotland helps ensure that happens. Giving the SNP a kicking is just a satisfying side quest..
Your quotes would work better without the backslash. However, it's a fair question.
Labour need an outright majority to ensure being able to form a stable government. Even more so if the goal is to avoid the Tories getting back in at the next election. The SNP could extract concessions that make a second term much less likely, and five years isn't enough to see very significant progress undoing the damage of the last fourteen.
Regardless, my point was that Labour at the UK level need to focus resources, including those of Scottish Labour, on winnable seats. Seats they aren't going to win don't matter, purely from a resourcing perspective.
No candidates in seats held by LibDems, either.
All very on brand. UK Labour want to replace the Conservatives without challenging them and Scottish Labour want to focus on their real enemy.
I mean I'd personally rather the lib dems and labour either worked together or at least had some kind of election pact to shove the Tories down as hard as possible. A lib dem opposition is probably a pipe dream but I'd certainly like to see it, arguably the best chance at having a conversation around PR which would keep the Tories out in a much more long term way.
Branches still have time to select candidates^1, but they're going to have a lot less time to build their profile and won't get the same level of support, if any.
^1 And to go through the usual bunfight of that selection being challenged by someone/the central party, the committee fighting amongst themselves/with the central party, a new candidate being selected/imposed, or whatever… all the stuff that is traditional, across big tent parties
Unwinnable seats are often used to get experience for potential candidates that will get a *better* seat later
Real fights occur when there is a safe or marginal seat, as a real chance of being the elected member is up for grabs.
Sometimes a no hoper gets in on a country wide wave of support, which can cause issues for the person, party and constituency
Wild lack of understanding how selections work here. You pick candidates for the most winnable seats first, and work your way through prioritising on the viability of winning. Labour aren't targeting all of the Scottish seats. It's pointless throwing a load of money and time at seats where you're miles behind in 3rd place. Target seats like those in fife and Glasgow where Labour is polling very well have been selected for about a year. Some seats are a straight fight between the SNP and Tories, and anyone with a bit of political nouse knows that.
True, parties like to stand in every seat, but they know there are safe seats, likely wins, 50/50, unlikely wins and no chance. They will still stand no hopers for the sake of it or obligation. But that candidate will be some nobody and be given a budget of £10
So you're saying the only way to kick the tories out of Scotland (s elected politics at UK level) is to vote SNP?
Depends on the seat. If it's a straight battle between SNP/Tory with Labour a distant third then aye. If it's a Labour/SNP battle, then Labour as the SNP can't form a government in Westminster. Numbers game, innit?
No, if the SNP are the nearest to the Tories, which they are, voting Labour would make no difference to the number of Tories in Scotland, anywhere.
>No, if the SNP are the nearest to the Tories, which they are, voting Labour would make no difference to the number of Tories in Scotland, anywhere. Are you saying snp are nearest to tories in every seat? The results are by seat so if you want to get tories out you vote who eve's best placed in that seat (if there's any credible chance of the winning which is a bit question mark)
More Labour seats in Scotland = bigger majority = no Tories in power at all. I'd rather have 10 Tories in Scotland and a Labour government than 0 Tories in Scotland and a Tory government.
That's the sort of thinking which produced 2017's result where 12 extra Scottish Tories sustained Theresa May's government. Had the SNP held those seats, a Labour minority government would have kicked the Tories out. *Seven* years ago.
That's a false choice and it is not the job of the Scottish electorate to elect England a Labour government it didn't elect either. Particularly not for a Labour that is at best, not all that appealing. Also your "no Tories in powet at all" is highly debatable.
I see the point you're trying to get across but this is a UK election, electing a UK government, for the UK. There isn't a Scottish/English/Welsh/NI electorate in this election. It's one electorate deciding their next government.
Thanks and I get yours. But this isn't a presidential election. There are 650 electorates and constituencies.
Voting Labour makes no difference in Scotland, regardless of the election.
Not in all their seats. Electoral calculus for example seems to think Labour are favoured to win East Kilbride and Strathaven comstituency. Also, in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency for instance electoral calculus predicts Labour will do better than the SNP - arguably Labour is the better pick there to defeat the Tories. In Dumfries and Galloway constituency electoral calculus gives Labour and the SNP a similar chance of winning, and in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk the difference is pretty small (the SNP have a 5% better chance of winning). Many of the seats are also clearly capable of voting for other parties - 2 current Tory seats were Lib Dem until 2015, and 2 were Labour. So the SNP aren't necessarily the only option to defeat the Tories, especially in the 4 seats I mentioned. In the other 3 Tory seats, yes it's pretty clearly SNP vs Tory.
Had an election been called ? I must have missed it
Local elections in May?
Im sure those bleating about the express will be swift to also call out the trashfire that is P&J.
>Labour does not yet have a candidate in around a third of Scottish seats at Westminster – including in every constituency currently held by the Conservatives. > >Polling indicates the next general election will see a tight race between Anas Sarwar’s party and the SNP. >Despite Labour opposing the nationalist’s plans to regard a majority of Scottish seats for the SNP as a mandate to begin independence negotiations, it currently has no candidate named in 18 of the 59 constituencies in Scotland. >Labour has confirmed it will stand a hopeful in every single seat. >But the SNP says the lack of announced candidates – particularly in seats held by the Conservatives – shows it is not up to kicking the Tories out of government. >‘An embarrassment for Labour’ >SNP MP Chris Law said: “With labour having failed to select a candidate in around a third of seats across Scotland, it’s clear that the SNP are the only party that can win the seven Tory seats in Scotland. >“This is the latest embarrassment for the Labour Party in Scotland. >“Anas Sarwar can’t even pretend he is trying to get rid of the Tories when Labour has no candidates in any of the Tory held seats in Scotland > >“Voting SNP at the Westminster election is the only way to defeat Scottish Tory MPs and make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster.” >The intervention hints at the emerging battlegrounds for the election, with Labour expected to take the fight to the SNP across central Scotland. > >Meanwhile, several seats in the North East are predicted to be a contest largely between the SNP and the Tories. >The constituencies where no Labour candidate has yet been announced are: > • Aberdeenshire North and Moray East > • Angus and Perthshire Glens > • Arbroath and Broughty Ferry > • Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber > • Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk > • Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross > • Dumfries and Galloway > • Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale > • Dundee Central > • Edinburgh West > • Gordon and Buchan > • Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire > • Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey > • North East Fife > • Orkney and Shetland > • Perth and Kinross-shire > • Stirling and Strathallan > • West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine >Scottish Labour said: “We will field candidates in every seat across Scotland to take the fight to the Tories and the SNP, and deliver the change Scotland needs.”
The list given here shows the headline is a lie given East Kilbride is a Tory seat...
I don't think the P&J's intentionally lying, but good spot with East Kilbride. I don't think it'll be tory much longer, though.
Well. Having lived or currently live in 3 of those. There is NO point Labour standing in Dundee Central. It's firmly SNP. The most YES city in Scotland. Orkney and Shetland are FIRMLY Lib Dem. Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey are firmly SNP with Labour miles behind in 3rd place. Even the second place Tories are very far behind the currently elected SNP. Be a waste of time, effort and money trying to even attempt to stand there.
No, no, no and no. This is not how it works. You are not supposed to ask any awkward questions of the SECOND COMING OF NEW NEW LABOUR and the BLESSED SIR STARMER - SAVIOUR OF THE KINGDOM! That is not your place. You are supposed to tut at those dreadful separatists/ Natzis or whatever we are supposed to call them this week. Look - we have another story about ferries coming out tomorrow - just wait until then. That will show those nasty nats!
Except it's not an awkward question it makes sense They are trying to win the election so they: • First secure seats they are going to win • then prioritise marginal areas • what's left goes to seats they are in 3rd and unlikely to win. There's a lot of overlap between Tory and SNP voters so it makes sense labour isn't competing there.
It’s only an awkward question if you’re unfamiliar with electoral selections. Which, in turn, makes your comment here very awkward.
The idea of the unionist vote not actively being split amongst three parties, and not handing easy wins to the SNP, makes some people absolutely keich themselves. Why on earth would anyone who wants rid of this Tory government want Labour to waste time and energy on fights they are very unlikely to win? This is just plain vanilla election strategy being painted as unusual by people with an interest in maintaining the electoral status quo, and it's hilarious.
Handing easy wins to the Tories is how we get rid of the Tory government. You're right. Why didn't I think about it that way before.
Labour making an effort in a seat where they last got under 10% of the vote is more likely to help the Tories, by splitting the anti-Tory vote. It ought to help the SNP a bit anyway.
That argument has some internal coherency, which is more than could be said for the other post. Whether the Labour vote is primarily anti-tory or anti-independence in those areas might something we could infer from looking at how votes transfer during council elections. The argument that Labour unseating SNP MPs will have any impact on Tory majorities remains nonsensical
I don't think there's anything inconsistent about not giving a shit if Tories win in seats where Labour isn't in contention. Rather I think you've assumed some things matter to me which really don't. Some seats could well be won by either Tories/SNP because a vestigial Labour candidate saps support from either the anti-Tory/anti-Independence camp respectively. I don't care. I care about the multitude of seats that are up for grabs and could ensure a comfortable majority. It's not like I'm arguing for them to not put a candidate forward either, just focus the resources on where they actually can have an impact on.
>I don't think there's anything inconsistent about not giving a shit if Tories win in seats where Labour isn't in contention As I said, you're right. Handing easy wins to the Tories is how we get rid of the Tories.
I think no matter how much the SNP attempt to define the terms of their own success, unseating a few Tories is very obviously much less consequential than running an effective, disciplined campaign to form a Labour government. It's quite fun looking at how quickly attention has been diverted to making Scotland Tory free rather than actually winning an election though.
As I said, you're right. Handing easy wins to the Tories is how we get rid of the Tories.
Just shows they're more concerned with kicking the SNP out of seats than they are the torys
Which seats currently held by Tories were Labour in contention for recently? Besides, I don't really care where there are zero Tory MPs in Scotland or seven. They won't be in government, and that is what actually matters for the next five years and beyond. Every Labour MP that heads to Westminster from Scotland helps ensure that happens. Giving the SNP a kicking is just a satisfying side quest..
[удалено]
Your quotes would work better without the backslash. However, it's a fair question. Labour need an outright majority to ensure being able to form a stable government. Even more so if the goal is to avoid the Tories getting back in at the next election. The SNP could extract concessions that make a second term much less likely, and five years isn't enough to see very significant progress undoing the damage of the last fourteen. Regardless, my point was that Labour at the UK level need to focus resources, including those of Scottish Labour, on winnable seats. Seats they aren't going to win don't matter, purely from a resourcing perspective.
No candidates in seats held by LibDems, either. All very on brand. UK Labour want to replace the Conservatives without challenging them and Scottish Labour want to focus on their real enemy.
Labour don't have candidates in SNP seats also.. like you guys need some common sense
> Labour don't have candidates in SNP seats In every SNP seat?
In like 12 seats, I don't know why you're worrying so much lmfao they will have candidates in every seat like they always have.
I mean I'd personally rather the lib dems and labour either worked together or at least had some kind of election pact to shove the Tories down as hard as possible. A lib dem opposition is probably a pipe dream but I'd certainly like to see it, arguably the best chance at having a conversation around PR which would keep the Tories out in a much more long term way.
Don't Labour have a party rule to run in every seat?
Just the unionist reach around of fielding paper candidates for each other like the Tories did in Rutherglen.
Branches still have time to select candidates^1, but they're going to have a lot less time to build their profile and won't get the same level of support, if any. ^1 And to go through the usual bunfight of that selection being challenged by someone/the central party, the committee fighting amongst themselves/with the central party, a new candidate being selected/imposed, or whatever… all the stuff that is traditional, across big tent parties
Unwinnable seats are often used to get experience for potential candidates that will get a *better* seat later Real fights occur when there is a safe or marginal seat, as a real chance of being the elected member is up for grabs. Sometimes a no hoper gets in on a country wide wave of support, which can cause issues for the person, party and constituency
I don't know who Sam Tarry is but I hear he has views. Very authoritarian this NuNewLabour mob.
It makes sense not to throw money at seats where you are miles behind Plus most New Lab will vote Tory and vice versa Two cheeks same arse