Obviously there's pressure from both directions in *any* campaign, but in terms of outright personal intimidation and abuse on the Yes campaign's part the testimonies were countless - like, to the degree where I literally don't even know where to link first - probably this poll towards the end.

 

I'm genuinely surprised you're asking for documentation here - the coverage of it was *everywhere* in the last month of the campaign, and the huge imbalance in terms of campaign materials and pressure from Yes supporters was credited as a pretty big potential reason for the 'Shy No' factor in the polls (ICM and Politicalbetting talked it over a lot towards the last week and after).

No I'm not doubting the claim at all, I was just interested in reading more into it. Of course we heard about how the, eh, referendum momentum completely turned around (or at least seemed to according to media coverage and polling to some extent). I read about 'Shy No' and 'Shy Yes' but I don't remember reading polls specifically mentioning asking voters about 'intimidation' or reading too many anecdotes.

 

As I think I mentioned here I got completely fed up with the referendum and I was glad to have left Scotland before everything got crazy. When your Facebook feed is filled with a mixture of seething anger and 'stay safe out there tonight folks!' following a referendum, you know sentiments got uglier than they should've done.

Edited January 23, 201510 yr by Harve

The referendum went on for far too long. I'd be surprised if there was anyone this side of the border who wasn't over it by the end.

The referendum went on for far too long. I'd be surprised if there was anyone this side of the border who wasn't over it by the end.

Did you see UKIP's deputy leader attempt to lose the few Scottish votes they had on Question Time?

Unfortunately, UKIP's support base is essentially unerodable by anything a normal, socially liberal person would decree a 'gaffe'.

Did you see UKIP's deputy leader attempt to lose the few Scottish votes they had on Question Time?

I didn't! What did they do?

 

I have heard the Scottish UKIP MEP speak though and I seriously wonder if people voted for him because they thought he was a parody or something. He is a truly vile creature.

Coburn is an utter slug. Nothing worse than a fag traitor.

I didn't! What did they do?

 

I have heard the Scottish UKIP MEP speak though and I seriously wonder if people voted for him because they thought he was a parody or something. He is a truly vile creature.

He said that he was fed up with listening to the SNP. He came pretty close to saying that they shouldn't be given any airtime at all. Clearly, his idea of the UK didn't include Scotland.

 

Sorry it took me a few days to reply to this :ph34r:

News in that overall growth for 2014 in the UK was 2.6%. If Craig's still lurking - if that's your idea of a boom, I'd hate to see how bad a slump is.

 

(Speaking of, can we let Craig back for the election? If nothing else, we could all use the comic relief of deranged predictions of majorities of 50 for the Tories when they're still stuck on 30%.)

I can't see Craig predicting a majority as low as 50.

News in that overall growth for 2014 in the UK was 2.6%. If Craig's still lurking - if that's your idea of a boom, I'd hate to see how bad a slump is.

 

(Speaking of, can we let Craig back for the election? If nothing else, we could all use the comic relief of deranged predictions of majorities of 50 for the Tories when they're still stuck on 30%.)

 

They don't exactly need a spectacular performance when Labour are heading for their worst voteshare since World War 1. Tories getting about 34/35% could get them a majority.

Edited January 27, 201510 yr by Danny

Meanwhile, the Progress Tendency are busy showing how "in touch" they are with the public again by claiming Labour should be more willing to privatise the NHS(!!), despite Labour's current position being one of their few stances which is regarded remotely positively by the public:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/j...supporters-warn

Alan Milburn is on the board of a private health company. Don't act like it isn't them he's speaking for rather than Progress.

Alan Milburn is on the board of a private health company. Don't act like it isn't them he's speaking for rather than Progress.

 

Liz Kendall has been saying similar things.

To be fair to Liz Kendall (not something you'll hear me say often) from the little I read about the story it seemed like she sided with Andy Burnham on it.

To be fair to Liz Kendall (not something you'll hear me say often) from the little I read about the story it seemed like she sided with Andy Burnham on it.

 

But she's constantly making idiotic comments about "reform" and about how there's a "role for the private sector" in the NHS. Like most other people who spout that nonsense, I'm guessing she's someone who has never actually needed to rely on the NHS and doesn't appreciate how important it is for people to feel reassured that their doctor is acting in the best interests of the patient, rather than trying to maximise their profits.

 

**

 

YouGov polling based on all current Labour voters and people considering voting for them:

 

We would like you to think about the Labour party and the sort of policies and direction the party takes. Below are three pairs of statements, in each case please say which one you would prefer.

 

Public spending

Commit to spending more on NHS and public services: 43%

Commit to tackling deficit through cuts and tax rises: 19%

Neither: 26%

Don't know: 12%

 

 

Businesses

Labour should stand up to big business: 49%

Labour should be positive about big business: 23%

Neither: 15%

Don't know: 13%

 

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/you...uld-help-labour

Edited January 28, 201510 yr by Danny

In other news, the DUP won't be invited to the televised debates, despite currently being the 4th biggest party in the House of Commons. I'm sure we're all disappointed that Peter Robinson won't be grilled on why he thinks the earth is 6,000 years old in front on a UK-wide audience.

But she's constantly making idiotic comments about "reform" and about how there's a "role for the private sector" in the NHS. Like most other people who spout that nonsense, I'm guessing she's someone who has never actually needed to rely on the NHS and doesn't appreciate how important it is for people to feel reassured that their doctor is acting in the best interests of the patient, rather than trying to maximise their profits.

That's a ridiculously one-dimensional view of how private involvement in the NHS works. The only part where profit plays a motive is in the bidding process for a contract, and even then the profit only comes from the difference in the cost a private provider can provide the service for compared with the cost the NHS can provide it for - there's no remit for anyone treating a patient on an individual level to make a decision based on profit.

 

And this also totally ignores that there has been a role for private involvement in the NHS for nearly twenty years now. Would you have called it 'nonsense' to deny a patient the beds which private sector involvement provided from 1997 onwards when we didn't have the capacity otherwise in the health service, or would you have just put up the sign of the cross because 'private means profit which is EVIL!'. If you want the 'Blairite' position, just look at the last two paragraphs of the article you posted about Milburn - there's a pretty big difference between the idea that the private sector has a role to play in the NHS and the idea that the private sector is the only answer for the NHS's problems.

One of the leading Tory commentators Matthew Parris thinks Labour would be much better off going anti-austerity:

 

Politics is at least a branch of the retail trade. As any retail consultant will tell you, success lies not only in spotting a market — any fool may do that — but in knowing whether you are the business to supply it. In the 1970s Boots the Chemist saw a gap in the market for a trusted nationwide purveyor of branded, competitively priced audio equipment. They may have been right. Where they were wrong was to think Boots was the right name to put on a record player.

 

So is “Labour” the right label to put on austerity’s tin?

 

Well, say today’s Blairites, Tony Blair put Labour’s name on softened but essentially Thatcherite politics and won three election victories.

 

I wonder. A myth has grown up around the 1997 election: that Tony Blair won it. But anyone leading the opposition would have won it. John Smith or Neil Kinnock would have beaten the Tories hands down in 1997. With his aw-shucks charm, Mr Blair must have personally boosted Labour’s majority, but he was surfing a massive anti-Tory wave; he didn’t create it. He and his chancellor went on to reap the political rewards of the long and strong economic recovery that was already well under way. Revenue came rolling in.

And they just spent it. Elected as new Labour, they governed as Labour traditionally has, handing out massive sums to public service providers — without even needing to raise taxes. Mr Blair then got himself tangled up in a stupid foreign war and lost his lustre.

 

And that’s it. That’s all. That was Blairism. That’s new Labour. Plus, of course, the man’s consummate salesmanship, easily the most substantial thing about him. That, and not some arcane theory of third-way politics, was what Britain was voting for when it elected and re-elected Labour: Mr Blair’s charm, and their own pockets.

 

Because of his personal magic there has been endless after-the-event analysis of what he stood for. Forget it. Never mind the third way, the fourth way or any way. New Labour stood for us all getting richer and our houses more valuable.

 

Today the Labour keepers of the Blairite flame argue that Ed Miliband is taking a terrible risk by turning away from new Labour. Yet maybe the risk is the opposite. If people want austerity, won’t they vote for the people who brought it in? “Old” Labour, meanwhile, is a known quantity, a tried and (by millions) trusted brand, a set of solid ideas; ideas that many share.

 

To the palpable fury of Blairites there’s polling evidence that this brand is holding up fairly well. Wednesday’s Times Red Box website carried polling that strongly suggests an anti-austerity message resonates with a huge swathe of swing voters. By 57 per cent to 15, voters who are contemplating backing Labour but are not certain to, support a boost in spending. They also back (according to YouGov’s Stephan Shakespeare) “standing up more aggressively to big business”. The poll resonates with an earlier one for Red Box that surprised many with its finding that voters want a sharper, wider choice between the main parties’ policies at the election.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/colu...icle4340177.ece

There's a good essay by playwright David Hare in today's Guardian. It's fairly long but worth a read.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jan/...nce-of-war-play

 

He makes some very good points towards the end about how bankers have been allowed to carry on more or less as before. The government have done very little and Labour haven't exactly been screaming for reform.

 

Ideally, this is an issue that would be dealt with at EU level. However, there are two big problems as far as the UK is concerned. First, a lot of Tory MPs are so hostile towards the EU that they would automatically reject anything that comes from Brussels. Second, Cameron's relations with much to the EU are abysmal so he current government is in no position to lead discussions

There's a good essay by playwright David Hare in today's Guardian. It's fairly long but worth a read.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jan/...nce-of-war-play

 

He makes some very good points towards the end about how bankers have been allowed to carry on more or less as before. The government have done very little and Labour haven't exactly been screaming for reform.

 

Ideally, this is an issue that would be dealt with at EU level. However, there are two big problems as far as the UK is concerned. First, a lot of Tory MPs are so hostile towards the EU that they would automatically reject anything that comes from Brussels. Second, Cameron's relations with much to the EU are abysmal so he current government is in no position to lead discussions

 

Yes, imo that ties in with what I think is the best argument the pro-EU side have at their disposal: that if Europe all joins together, it will have the collective weight to force global action on bringing the banks and big businesses (and tax dodgers) into line, whereas if we're all small individual countries we will never have the collective punch to make the US agree with such things.

Edited January 31, 201510 yr by Danny