Sturgeon to resign as FM

[Nearly Sane]

Are you being a bit dense - the point about the elected MPs or MSPs is that they are ... err ... elected. So although they may be smaller in number than the membership they have an electoral mandate from numbers way in excess of member numbers. And those individuals are also accountable to the electorate. That's how our democracy works - we elect representative and they are authorised by that electoral process to make decisions. Members have no democratic mandate, nor are they accountable.
Not at all - I think Swinney put it really well:

"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."

This concurs with my view - is Forbes entitled to hold the views she does - sure she is.
Is Forbes entitled to express those views - absolutely
Is Forbes entitled to stand for election in the leadership race - yup
If she wins do I think she should be banned from taking up the office - nope, she would have a mandate under the current rules (notwithstanding I'm not sure I agree those rules are very sensible).

But I am just as entitled to hold my own view on whether her views mean she is an appropriate person to be FM or not. And my view is that she is not. Nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.

So when you wrote that the leader should represent the SNP, you meant apart from the members.

The point about the intolerance is you seem to want to change the mandate to somehow ensure that she isn't elected.

[ProfessorDavey]

So when you wrote that the leader should represent the SNP, you meant apart from the members.

Not sure if I've previously discussed this on the MB, but certainly have elsewhere. When we think of political parties, to my mind there are three main constituent elements. Firstly their elected representatives (e.g. MPs, MSPs etc), secondly there is the formal membership and thirdly there is their broader support within the electorate - their 'voters' so to speak. Some also have formally affiliated organisations, but I'll put that to one side.

The issue that a number of political parties have is that their formal membership is often not representative of either their elected representatives nor of their wider voter, let alone the populace as a whole. The clearest recent examples, of course, being Truss and Corbyn - both loved by their respective membership, yet not being favourite with MPs, who let's face it know and work with the individual in a manner that members don't. And similarly not clearly supported by broader voters.

Whisper it quietly, but when selecting a new leader, who presumably you want to be successful, of those three constuencies the least important should be the members. Why? - well because the MPs/MPSs know the person and have to work with the person and unless the broader electorate are prepared to vote for that individual they won't be successful.

This is in no way a comment about Forbes - I've expressed this view for many years - probably the first time being when Ed rather than David Miliband ended up as leader of the Labour party, which I was a member of at that time. That's situation was a little different to this one - but political parties need to think very, very carefully about how they select new leaders, and particularly how they do so when in power so that the individual becomes not only leader but PM/FM etc.

The point about the intolerance is you seem to want to change the mandate to somehow ensure that she isn't elected.

This is nothing to do with Forbes per se - indeed looking at where things are at the moment it is perhaps quite unlikely that the current SNP system will mean that she is elected. I made exactly the same points during the tory leadership election in the summer, so I cannot see how this can be construed as being anything to do with Forbes, let alone intolerance towards her.

NS - there are many ways in which you can select a new leader - thinking the approach taken by a particular political party isn't ideal is in no way intolerant. And by the way I raised the whole issue of the process, including numbers for nominations before Forbes had announced her leadership or started on her series of train wreck interviews.

[ProfessorDavey]

So confirmed that there will be three candidates - Forbes, Regan, Yousaf.

As this is a form of STV it would be interesting to know how transfers are likely to play out for each candidate.

My (rather uninformed) thoughts being:

Forbes votes would split more towards Regan than Yousaf
Regan's votes will split more towards Yousaf than Forbes
Yousaf's votes will split more towards Regan than Forbes

Presuming (and I know this is a presumption) that Regan comes third on first preferences, then how her votes split may be decisive.

[Nearly Sane]

So confirmed that there will be three candidates - Forbes, Regan, Yousaf.

As this is a form of STV it would be interesting to know how transfers are likely to play out for each candidate.

My (rather uninformed) thoughts being:

Forbes votes would split more towards Regan than Yousaf
Regan's votes will split more towards Yousaf than Forbes
Yousaf's votes will split more towards Regan than Forbes

Presuming (and I know this is a presumption) that Regan comes third on first preferences, then how her votes split may be decisive.

 Regan's prominence and standing is based on 2 things. Her GRRB rebellion, and a more aggressive approach to independence. I think because of the first her votes will split towards Forbes.

Forbes's candidacy is based mostly on the perceived competence as Finance Minister, and being a gradualist. I thonk her votes would split 70 - 30 to Yousaf currently.

Yousaf's votes are based on more of the same, loyality, and long service. Should his votes split, and I cannot see anyway that happens. I would think they go mostly to Forbes 85 - 15, possibly higher.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regan's prominence and standing is based on 2 things. Her GRRB rebellion, and a more aggressive approach to independence. I think because of the first her votes will split towards Forbes.

Interesting view - I've read that Forbes is fairly centre-right in her political thinking and apart from independence could quite happily sit in the sCons. And that provided a distinction with Regan and Yousaf who are more centre-left and more aligned politically to the Sturgeon era. If that is the case you'd perhaps expect Yousaf to be a better alignment to Regan first pref supporters than Forbes.

Sure, there are differences on GRRB but will that really be a big issue - my understanding was that for all the froth and noise on this rank and file voters and SNP supporters did not consider this to be a major issue. I think it ranked something like 30th in the most recent issues monitor, which was actually polling at the height of the publicity on the bill. If I'm getting this right of 476 SNP supporters polled just 2 mentioned gender recognitions reforms as an important issue.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting view - I've read that Forbes is fairly centre-right in her political thinking and apart from independence could quite happily sit in the sCons. And that provided a distinction with Regan and Yousaf who are more centre-left and more aligned politically to the Sturgeon era. If that is the case you'd perhaps expect Yousaf to be a better alignment to Regan first pref supporters than Forbes.

Sure, there are differences on GRRB but will that really be a big issue - my understanding was that for all the froth and noise on this rank and file voters and SNP supporters did not consider this to be a major issue. I think it ranked something like 30th in the most recent issues monitor, which was actually polling at the height of the publicity on the bill. If I'm getting this right of 476 SNP supporters polled just 2 mentioned gender recognitions reforms as an important issue.

I think applying left/right distinctions in the SNP is fraught with difficulty. All of the candidates are mainstream economic policy in the SNP with Regan seen as a small amount more 'left'.

The most significant differentiator is how to get to independence, both Yousaf and Forbes are gradualists, as is Regan but her 50%+1 position that I posted a couple of days ago is where she's trying to get through to the 'second round'.

Regan would not have a candidacy outside of the GRRB rebellion, though it that was already affected by Alba, which is why she was keen on people being able to rejoin to vote, and why the 'leadership' was not so keen. That also applies tp the less gradualist approach.

The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides.

[ProfessorDavey]

The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides.

Evidence please - polling seems to suggest that for all the publicity around this issue the vast, vast majority don't see this an important issue. I know the polling I've seen is only for all of the electorate and SNP voters, and therefore not SNP members, but if you are to make that claim then you'll need to show me credible evidence that SNP members are markedly more concerned by the GRRB than the 2 in 476 data for SNP voters (who will, of course include a subset of members).

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence please - polling seems to suggest that for all the publicity around this issue the vast, vast majority don't see this an important issue. I know the polling I've seen is only for all of the electorate and SNP voters, and therefore not SNP members, but if you are to make that claim then you'll need to show me credible evidence that SNP members are markedly more concerned by the GRRB than the 2 in 476 data for SNP voters (who will, of course include a subset of members).

Regan's candidacy is the evidence. And that your 'evidence' is based on specifically irrelevant groupings is your problem



As an aside, I note that on the Oddschecker website she's diwn as Ash Denham - her 'married' name. Perhaps a sad lesson about such things.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd also ask Prof D what number of voters suggested sex outside marriage as an important topic, since he thinks that's where Forbes may have talen a position to alienate so many voters?

[ProfessorDavey]

Regan's candidacy is the evidence. And that your 'evidence' is based on specifically irrelevant groupings is your problem

That isn't evidence at all - as we know it requires just 100 people, out of over 100,000 to get on the ballot paper.

But actually the existing polling gives a pretty clear indication.

So there were 476 SNP voters in the poll - we know that the SNP has a really high ratio of members/voters compared to other parties. So the SNP typically gets about 1.2 million votes and so about 8-9% of SNP voters will be members. So you can reasonably estimate that of those 476 SNP voters about 40 will be SNP members. So even if you make an assumption that the two people from the SNP voters who said gender recognition was an important issue are members (big assumption), then you'd still only have about 5% of members thinking gender recognition is an important issue.

Bottom line - don't confuse the amount of smoke, noise and media attention an issue gains in the Westminster/Holyrood bubble with whether people more broadly (whether all of the populace, or just SNP voters or members) think an issue is important.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd also ask Prof D what number of voters suggested sex outside marriage as an important topic, since he thinks that's where Forbes may have talen a position to alienate so many voters?

You may well be correct - but there is a difference. In the case of sex outside marriage, it isn't the issue per se, but Forbes telling (I'd imagine a large majority) of the electorate that she hopes to vote for her that she considers their personal choices to be wrong and immoral. There is a mantra in politics - don't insult the electorate, and I would have thought telling most of the electorate that their choices are immoral and wrong would fall foul of that mantra big time.

[Nearly Sane]

That isn't evidence at all - as we know it requires just 100 people, out of over 100,000 to get on the ballot paper.

But actually the existing polling gives a pretty clear indication.

So there were 476 SNP voters in the poll - we know that the SNP has a really high ratio of members/voters compared to other parties. So the SNP typically gets about 1.2 million votes and so about 8-9% of SNP voters will be members. So you can reasonably estimate that of those 476 SNP voters about 40 will be SNP members. So even if you make an assumption that the two people from the SNP voters who said gender recognition was an important issue are members (big assumption), then you'd still only have about 5% of members thinking gender recognition is an important issue.

Bottom line - don't confuse the amount of smoke, noise and media attention an issue gains in the Westminster/Holyrood bubble with whether people more broadly (whether all of the populace, or just SNP voters or members) think an issue is important.

You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.

[Nearly Sane]

You may well be correct - but there is a difference. In the case of sex outside marriage, it isn't the issue per se, but Forbes telling (I'd imagine a large majority) of the electorate that she hopes to vote for her that she considers their personal choices to be wrong and immoral. There is a mantra in politics - don't insult the electorate, and I would have thought telling most of the electorate that their choices are immoral and wrong would fall foul of that mantra big time.

That's nice. So you want to cite a poll for one case but your 'feeling' again for another.

[ProfessorDavey]

You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.

You've missed the point in which you provided any credible evidence to back up your claim that:

"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."

[Nearly Sane]

You've missed the point in which you provided any credible evidence to back up your claim that:

"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."

And Regan's candidacy is based on that, and that you are discussing that is based on it. That you want to cite a poll on one thing but talk about your feeling on another just shows your confusion.

[ProfessorDavey]

You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that.

Note you are gently moving the goalposts.

Your claim was about 'active members, those likely to vote', not activists. Not sure you are or have been a member of a political party, but if so you will know that members, members likely to vote in a membership election, and activists aren't the same thing at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Note you are gently moving the goalposts.

Your claim was about 'active members, those likely to vote', not activists. Not sure you are or have been a member of a political party, but if so you will know that members, members likely to vote in a membership election, and activists aren't the same thing at all.

I disagree. Your evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

And Regan's candidacy is based on that, and that you are discussing that is based on it.

So what - we are talking about whether GRRB is actually considered important. That Regan has managed to get over the tiniest of nomination hurdles, finding 100 people out of 100,000 to nominate her tells us nothing about whether many of that 100,000 think the issue is important. Extrapolating from the polling suggests that perhaps 5% of that 100,000 may consider it important.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree.

You disagree with what:

It is a demonstrable fact that you have changed your language from:

"The GRRB is much more significant amongst active members, those likely to vote, on both sides."

"You missed my point about activists because you are using a poll that isn't based on that."

Your evidence?

Evidence for what? That a member of a political party and an activist aren't the same thing?

This from the party I know best (although my parents' activism within the Tory party tells me that they are the same too):

https://labour.org.uk/members/activist-area/

Activists actually do stuff for the party, beyond just paying their membership. An activist is a person who might, for example deliver leaflets, canvass, produce party literature, take on official functions within a local party organisation, perhaps actually stand as a candidate. These people are usually, but interestingly not always, members. But most members aren't activists - their involvement will go no further than paying their subs. I know, because I've been an activist and know the proportions of members who, although they are active members (i.e. have paid their subs) are not activists. I have also been a paid up member and not an activist - when I was not enthused enough about the leadership and direction of the party to be motivated to get off my arse. But guess what, while I was a member I always voted in any leadership election, regardless of whether I was an activist or not at the time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Powerful stuff:

https://twitter.com/MhairiBlack/status/1629125518007189504?t=mlIfWF4NigoKdZ2Fsh8Qpg&s=19

[Nearly Sane]

The battle lines have been drawn up on the various camos that are now portrayed as the mad homophobe, the incompetent liar (about not being a homophobe) and the Tory traitor.

[ProfessorDavey]

The battle lines have been drawn up on the various camos that are now portrayed as the mad homophobe, the incompetent liar (about not being a homophobe) and the Tory traitor.

I'm presuming that Regan is the tory traitor? Why is this? Genuine question as I know next to nothing about her, to the extent that I'd never heard of her before she was mentioned as a potential candidate after Sturgeon resigned. My lack of knowledge was so great that I wasn't even sure whether the person being mentioned as a candidate was male or female! Now I guess my ignorance is my issue, but I do like to think that I'm reasonably well informed politically so I'd suggest this also indicates that she has an exceptionally low profile.

Now I saw her being interviewed on the news last night - I think this is the first time I'd heard her speak/be interviewed. Blimey she was awful.

What on earth has happened to the SNP if these three are the best they can come up with. Salmond was one of the most talented and brilliant politicians of his generation (surely that cannot be denied regardless of whether you agree with his politics). And he ensured that there was a succession plan to someone who, if anything, was even more talented and brilliant as a politician (again surely that cannot be denied regardless of whether you agree with her politics). But after these two giants, not just of Scottish politics, but of UK politics we seem to have a complete vacuum. What went wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm presuming that Regan is the tory traitor? Why is this? Genuine question as I know next to nothing about her, to the extent that I'd never heard of her before she was mentioned as a potential candidate after Sturgeon resigned. My lack of knowledge was so great that I wasn't even sure whether the person being mentioned as a candidate was male or female! Now I guess my ignorance is my issue, but I do like to think that I'm reasonably well informed politically so I'd suggest this also indicates that she has an exceptionally low profile.


....

So the traitor bit comes from being seen as to close to Alba, which is in part related to the opposition to the GRRB, and also because as part of her team she has an advisor whi is in Alba and advises Salmond (they also used to be an advisor to Sturgeon).

The Tory comes from the idea that some of the more 'imaginative' that Alba is effectively a 'British deep state' plot to stop independence. To be fair, those imaginative types are matched on the Alba side who think many in the SNP are blocks placed by the deep state to distract from independence.

So far myy investments in tinfoil and popcorn are doing very well 


As to the quality of the candidates, I think there is a certain amount of regression to the mean combined with a general dearth of talent in all political parties. 

[jeremyp]

Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:

'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'

It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.

Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.

So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.

Weasel words are words designed so you can say something (or appear to say something) without being pinned down to it in the future. I am in no doubt as to what this woman's views are and so how can her words be weasel words? It seems to me that her opinion was a perfectly rational and reasonable one ("this is my position based on my faith, but others have different views and that's fine too"). You and the interviewer are just angry that she didn't start frothing at the mouth and condemning people for having children outside marriage.

You should just give it up - as should the interviewer who must have known shew wasn't going to give him the ammunition he wanted after the third time of asking.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm....

https://archive.vn/IqXn1