Danny

I think they've been talking about giving cities more power, which I don't like all that much because the northern cities (especially Manchester and Liverpool) are actually doing OK-ish, it's the working-class towns in the north that have really been neglected and left to rot away over the past decades. I'd rather regional parliaments/assemblies to look after everyone's interests. Love how nakedly partisan the Tories' "English votes for English laws" thing is, but don't know why Labour commentators are going so crazy about how it would stop them winning any elections; by my maths, they would only need to win 8 additional seats in England to make up the ground lost by excluding non-English MPs.

I think it's extremely likely the SNP will either get a majority or just fall short in 2016. I mean, just the "Yes" vote alone would probably give the SNP another majority, and it's not like there's any signs their rivals are going to get more popular. Why wouldn't they continue to feed off the massive anger and disillusionment there is with the Westminster parties?

If that analysis is true, and Scotland is fundamentally a pro-independence country, that does not exactly bode well for the next referendum within 5-10 years.

:D Snobbish and plain wrong though he is, kudos to him for atleast having the guts to say out loud what all of the elites think: that this huge crisis is all the fault of the "Great Unwashed" for not realising the supposed "facts" of how political parties supposedly have to act, rather than it being the fault of the politicians themselves

Last 4 polls have all given Yes 48% / No 52%. I'd expect the result to be pretty much that, maybe the gap might be 1-2% bigger.

Do you think Aberdeenshire (and the rest of North East Scotland) will vote for it? I heard it was one of the regions most against independence, which seems strange because it's the SNP's heartland. Also, what happens if the Borders say no, but the overall result is Yes? Berwickshire to join England?

To be fair, I'm not sure that's true. All 3 parties had virtually identical policies on the economy, and in quite a few other areas the Lib Dem manifesto was actually a bit closer to the Tories. The only leftwing things Clegg said were the kind of vague, platitudinous nonsense about "fairness" that the Blairites do, without really giving any concrete policies that were leftwing (tuition fees being an obvious exception). I mean, he'd spent most of the 2 years before the election talking about how the Lib Dems would be "the party of tax cuts", and said at his last party conference before the election that there would have to be "savage spending cuts". That said, there were a LOT of individual Lib Dem candidates who pushed very left-wing messages and said they'd stand up for poor people more than Labour would, but I kind of think a lot of the blame lies with the Lib Dem voters themselves: the sizeable "Guardianista" contingent of the Lib Dem support just hadn't paid attention to how much more Tory-ish Clegg was than Charles Kennedy, despite the many signs.

But the SNP to their credit have done an excellent job of, even when they come under fire, persistently defending their policies anyway and explaining why they think it's a good idea inspite of the criticisms. And as a result, I don't think anyone denies that their campaign has been a roaring success (even if they lose by a narrow margin, as I expect, it will still be a much better result than anyone was expecting a year ago). What I fear Labour will do, based on the last few years, is whenever one of their policies starts getting criticised, they will just go quiet or try to change the subject or even do a U-turn on the policy itself, which projects weakness.

OK, I feel slightly younger now then, because even I've heard 'Budapest' :P

I still maintain this had nothing to do with the policy itself, which polled well even after businessmen collectively spat their dummies out (and crucially, it polled well even when it was mentioned in the question that it was Labour's policy). I think it had to with the fact they didn't fight back against the criticism which made them look weak and lacking in authority. Incidentally, that feeds into what I think could be the most damaging criticism of all for Miliband at the next election: that if he's too weak to even stand up for himself, will he really have the bottle to stand up for Britain's interests in the EU/in the world generally. Irrespective of how "credible" or Tory-lite Labour's next manifesto is, there WILL be a cascade of criticism from the fat cats and vested interests regardless, and Ed if he doesn't fight back against it will look like someone who's easy to bully and dominate.

Hasn't the Scottish referendum shown how little attention people pay to businesses? People put them in the same bucket as politicians. Even "Tory boy" Lord Ashcroft in that big study of the 2010 election said that big businesses piling in on some small tax rise Labour planned had backfired (page 50: " the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them").

God, there's nothing like looking at the iTunes chart to make you feel old. I've only heard two of the songs in the top 10, being Taylor Swift's (how is this doing so well?!? :mellow: ) and Sam Smith's.

No, it definitely goes wider than just immigration, atleast round here. Last time I did some canvassing a couple of years ago in Wirral, people were constantly saying they didn't think anything would be any different if there was a Labour government in, how Labour supported the cuts just as much as the Tories did (in fairness, there was a factor here in that Labour had got elected to the local council a year or two before that and people couldn't understand why they wouldn't have the power to stop the cuts) and how no matter which party was in, the rich always seemed to get richer while the average person's incomes were always getting squeezed evermore. Just because normal people don't use the words "neoliberal dogma" or "Establishment" or even in most cases "austerity", that doesn't mean that there aren't a LOT of people who would agree with the essence of Owen Jones et al's argument. (Though "privatising the NHS" IS something that seems to have passed from the left-wing blogosphere to normal people, much as the New Labour bigwigs might wish it was not so.) Except we already saw in the 2010 election a big contrast in styles between Cameron and Brown in virtually every way (apart from both being men), and yet people still said they were "all the same". Not to mention Farage is not exactly presentationally that different to the other three, but stands out as not being "the same" precisely because he atleast says something that's "interesting" (horrifyingly so) and distinctive.

Yup, that's exactly what's going to solve an unprecedented political crisis with record levels of fury -- a double dose more of the same old politics that created the problem. I really am quite stunned that you claim you never hear people say "all your policies are the same". I thought you agreed ages ago that people did always say it, but just that, in spite of the complaints, that being "radical" wouldn't work just because when it comes to the crunch people don't take risks -- which I obviously don't agree with either, but atleast it's a feasible argument. But irrespective of what people would do if something different was offered, it's still nevertheless THE number one complaint atm that both the main parties are offering the same thing, and that "No matter who I vote for, nothing will change".

Universe 1 would be more successful, though even that would be no guarantee of success for obvious reasons. In Universe 2, even the most charismatic leader in the world would come across as a charisma-free zone when just spouting the management-speak that's inevitable when you run on a "New Labour" substance-free programme (notice how Rachel Reeves, despite sounding "normal" in terms of accent, always sends everyone to sleep because she's terrified of ever saying anything interesting politically). Another thought experiment: why do you think so many lifelong Scottish Labour voters are voting for independence?

And my point is that it's a phenomenon not confined to Scotland, and Labour doing more of the same stuff that's pushed them away will simply have the same effect in other regions (not bothering whatsoever with the political system/voting, even if not outright independence...yet). The mainstream political system can't continue to just determinedly represent only the South East and such a tiny spread of public opinion, and expect people to just put up with it forever, as we're seeing now.

Lol. Have you even paid any attention to what's happened in Scotland? Diehard Labour supporters are desperate to get away from the entire country because of what you celebrate as "centrist" policies! But feel free to carry on hoping Labour does what's causing such a huge "existential" crisis for the country and drive even more regions to try and do anything to get away if that's what you want. And by the way, Labour would have a majority on this week's YouGov polls even without Scotland. People always seem to forget when they talk about "removing Labour Scottish MPs" that the number you need for a majority also gets moved back significantly as well.

New ICM poll puts Yes on 51%, No on 49%. But more interesting is when independence supporters are asked for their reasons for voting for it. The top one is "Westminster's style of politics" -- ahead of "feelings about Scotland" and well ahead of "(negative) feelings about the UK". Which confirms that for many people this is not about "jingoistic" Scottish nationalism at all, it's about just wanting to escape from our awful political system, like UKIP voters in the rest of the UK.

Whispers on Twitter that a new poll tonight will show a big(ger) lead for the anti-independence side.

It was never offered. That pathetic thing 10 years ago was basically just a merger of all the local councils' pathetic powers ("pay for a whole load of new politicians and don't get anything new in return!" was never going to be a good sales pitch), not the control over public services and perhaps even borrowing/taxation powers we're talking about now. Plus, since that vote, I suspect resentment has grown at both Scotland for "getting a better deal", and at the SouthEast/London for becoming ever more dominant at the North's expense.

Yup. I saw that tool John Redwood on Newsnight last night saying there should be just one parliament for the whole of England. I honestly think that would go down like a cup of cold sick in the North, who do not want to be dominated by south-easterners even more than they are now (frankly I think there's some people in the North who might even wish that Scotland offered to take us with them if they go independent).

The SNP would probably win the first election just because they'd be the people to trust to sort out any remaining "negotiations" with the rest of the UK, but they wouldn't necessarily win most elections after that. In fact, it's questionable whether they'd even survive in the long run, since if they get independence their whole raison d'etre will have been fulfilled. As for the second paragraph -- my point was it's just not going to fly with the public, because anytime Labour try and say the SNP aren't serious about "fairness", the SNP can respond by flagging up the numerous moronic statements from Labour frontbenchers about how austerity will be continuing if they win the election and the nasty things they've said about welfare, immigration, etc. Any attempts to distance themselves from it would have to involve Labour saying "oh we were lying/just trying to get good headlines then, we don't really mean it", which would not exactly do much to make people put their trust in them.

Exactly. It's not a referendum on neverending SNP rule, and the "Better Together" side's attempts to make it so have not worked. In any case, it's a total blind alley for Labour to try to claim they'll be fairer to the poor than the SNP. I've seen that the SNP in the last few days have been having a field day with Labour's claims to be "tougher than the Tories on welfare".

And now, with no hint of irony, the West is planning to "intervene" in Iraq by attacking the very people they wanted to side with in Syria a year ago. Anyone would think they just wanted to flex their muscles and drop bombs to make themselves feel powerful...

Alex Salmond's personal ratings are actually pretty low atm (lower than Nicola Sturgeon's I think), so this doesn't seem like it has anything to do with his campaigning skills. This seems to be a rare case where people are genuinely putting personalities aside and deciding on the substance of the issue. And it seems most have decided the real big issues are "do you feel or Scottish or British?" and "do you want to be ruled by a southern Westminster elite?", rather than trivial crap about the currency (someone said aptly that the No campaign's obsession with the pound is like saying a couple who detest eachother would stay together just to keep the joint CD collection). That said, can't help but wonder if this poll might actually be a blessing in disguise for the No side, since being shown independence ACTUALLY REALLY might happen might lead to some recent converts getting cold feet. Winning margin will probably be less than 5% eitherway.