Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Election is on May 5th (the Welsh election is on that date as well, but it's had (much) less media attention).

Would this include MPs?

If so would they automatically tie in with a Conservative government and count toward thier seat number as if they were real Tory MPs?

This is silly nonsense, stop carving up what's left, it's supposed to be a United Kingdom

Before the '60's the Tories in Scotland were an organisationally seperate party from the Tories elsewhere; they ran as Unionists (same as Northern Ireland).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So they'd be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party? (or more separate than that)...

Just the Unionist Party IIRC. Maybe Scottish Unionist Party?

(Conservative & Unionist Party comes from the merger with the remains of the Liberal Unionists in the early 20th century)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter?

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can see a splitting of the Party in order to try and regain ANY popularity in Scotland or Wales,

Splitting the Welsh Tories off from the main Tory party would be very silly; much of their electoral appeal comes (and has always come) from the fact that they are seen as being the most English of the major parties. Sure, that's also a reason why they're beyond the pale for a lot of other Welsh voters, but those that think that won't be attracted to the Tories no matter what.
And it's not as though the Tories don't have a decent vote in Wales; they've beaten Plaid in every election since 2003 and will likely poll around a quarter of the vote in the Assembly elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too early to make any serious guesses about the next General Election; it's not even clear whether it'll be a low turnout one (as it would be if it was held now; might even *gulps* fall under 50%...) or a high turnout one. It depends how much politics changes over the next two years or so. Obviously a low turnout election would favour the Tories and a high turnout election Labour.

At this point, I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will grow sick of Ming Campbell and toss him out much like the Conservatives did to Iain Duncan Smith, possibly as early as June of this year if the locals are disappointing (or perhaps June of next year).

Perhaps. But maybe not; enough LibDems might remember the month or so of terror in early 2006 to try another coup.

Btw, I suspect I'm in a minority of about three here, but I don't think that Ming (the Merciless) has been as bad a leader as is generally assumed; it's just that Kennedy was a very, very good one (as far as electoral appeal goes at least). Better than the alternatives anyway; Huhne comes off as a second hand car salesman and Hughes is beyond the pale in so many ways... and unlike those two there's no chance of Campbell actually losing his seat next election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if they felt suicidal

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour don't hold many seats in the South as it as.
O/c the most of marginals seem likely to go (even if there's a high turnout election), but not all of Labour's remaining Southern seats are marginals.
And Pavilion is hardly worthy of an "even" in front of a losing prediction; it's not exactly Itchen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance. You clearly don't know London; there's a solid core of inner city constituencies that won't fall in (almost) any circumstances. You should also note that Labour's core vote east of the City held up quite well in 2006.
And I've seen no evidence of a LibDem surge in London of late (because there isn't any).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour's vote across the GLA-area fell by 8%; partially because certain unpopular policies are more unpopular within the Metropolis than outside, but also because Labour did very well there in 2001.

Btw, the theory of "trending" has, happily, not crossed the Atlantic; finding people over here who are foolish enough to believe that an 11% fall one year means that they'll be a similer sized fall the next is rather hard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where? I can think of about three at the most and I don't see any of them actually falling.
Contrary to their own silly propaganda the LibDems aren't actually surging in the Northern Cities...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No they don't; the boundary changes (like all boundary changes) favour the Tories.
But methinks that isn't what you're getting at. The reason why Labour needs less votes per constituency than the other parties is because turnout is lower (often a lot lower) in Labour areas than elsewhere. That... and class polarisation. Obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol; Labour doesn't benefit from the few extra seats Wales gets (Wales isn't Scotland you know). If you eliminated a few Welsh seats the eliminated seats would not all be Labour; if the boundaries were drawn in the same odd way as they were in Scotland it's actually possible that all the eliminated seats would be held by other parties.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How can 4 countries be unified under one ruler?

An argument can be made that if the U.K has four, then the U.S has fifty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scotland and Wales have national football sides because they had national football associations from a very early stage. If we'd only taken to football in (say) the '50's there'd only be one side.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of people do describe themselves as British actually; while describing themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish (though not to the extent of the other two, obviously) or whatever as well. People can have more than one identity you know (I view myself as being both Welsh and English for example).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Turnout impacts the difference somewhat,

A lot actually; have a look at a map of turnout in the 2005 election. There are a couple online IIRC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Replace rural with commuterland then that's clearly true. But there's no way round that without gerrymandering. Besides, the worst of the imbalance is dealt with every boundary change. Of course, things always shift back to where they were, but it's hardly the boundary commision's fault that people move.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the smallest seat in Wales is actually Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would the Tories (Preseli Pembroke). And if the boundaries were drawn in the way that the Scottish ones were, Clwyd West would go also, and maybe even Monmouth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually an inevitable result of abolishing a seat or two in the Valleys would be for parts of the Valleys not in Valleys constituencies to be added to other constituencies; with predictable results.
Besides, the Valleys seats aren't actually much smaller than seats in the rest of Wales; most Welsh seats have electorates in the 50,000's.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the Welsh seats are about the right size anyway. 'tis the English and Scottish seats that are the wrong size.