If the Guardian are to be believed (and there always ought to be some kind of question mark over that), we'll finally get our elusive first candidate for the Scottish Labour "leadership" today, in the shape of "Jackanory Jim" Murphy. If he dares to hold something approximating to a proper press conference, I do hope the following questions will be asked...
1) Will you commit to standing for Holyrood in 2016, irrespective of circumstances? Will you, for example, give an absolute undertaking that if Labour lose the general election next year, you will not resign the Scottish leadership to take up a higher profile Shadow Cabinet position if that's on offer from Ed Miliband's successor? And if you are defeated in this contest by Neil Findlay (or by anyone else), will you commit to switching to Holyrood anyway to be part of the new Scottish leader's team? Or is the Scottish Parliament only good enough for you if you're the leader?
2) If you win, all three of Scottish Labour's formal leadership positions (leader, deputy leader and Shadow Scottish Secretary) will be held by MPs in London, and not one will be held by an MSP in Edinburgh. Do you think that is a) appropriate, and b) the best way of disproving Johann Lamont's claim that Scottish Labour is run as a branch office of the London party?
3) Because all three "leaders" will be in the wrong parliament, there will be a need for the party to have a lead spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament (a de facto fourth-in-command) to take on Nicola Sturgeon in First Minister's Questions. Will you guarantee that Labour MSPs will be able to elect that person themselves, rather than being lumbered with someone appointed by you from London?
Jim Murphy: Dave's Little Helper.
ReplyDeleteIf Murphy enters the rigged election and wins, Sarwar and Stair Heid will resign their positions (Sarwar is a plonker and Stair Heid has lost her Unique Selling Position with Ed now that JoLa is gone).
ReplyDeleteTwo controllable numpties running Holyrood and Nesferatu Jim pulling the strings.
Typical Labour chicanery.
Forgot
ReplyDeleteMurphy will then only cross swords with the SNP on controlled BBC interviews (Radio and TV and subliminal prpaganda) and via placed adverts, aka free political comment, in the Daily Rectum, Herals, Scotsman, Dundee Courier, Aberdeen P and J and every local newspaper owned outside Scotland, not forgetting River City.
Sorted.
Double forgot
ReplyDeleteMy little scenario building exercise brings me to a point which I consider a veritable possibility.
Does this mean that we are in as near a dammit a crypto-fascist state?
Jim will be nakedly exposed,his 100 town,street tour was way over egged by the MSM,earlier in his campaign I saw an older lady YESer ask a perfectly straight forward question,and he totaly ignored it,he won't be able to hide Scottish Parliament
ReplyDeleteIf nobody takes the job...cut their benefits
ReplyDeleteI see they've finally got someone to put their neck in the noose/name forward for leader.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Sarah Boyack?? Really? Murphy's chum in little Ed's "root and branch reform" of 'scottish' labour after the 2011 landslide which produced.. er... nothing. Well, not quite nothing, Falkirk happened after it as Murphy knows all too well since he was right in the thick of it.
She's also Maigrit Curran's protoge so I can't see how that would be a problem now.
A list MSP as well since she lost her constituency seat to the SNP in 2011, so not exactly a safe choice either.
TBH she looks like a placeholder (nobody was tipping her for a reason ) while little Ed and London Labour are still trying to strongarm Murphy into the job. The fact that Smurph still hasn't come out and said he'll stand speaks volumes since a great many Labour 'insiders' claimed he would do so this morning and he still hasn't done so.
Findlay was also asked point-blank by a journo today if he would stand and he didn't say a word. There's the enthusiasm for the job that Murphy and he will have a wee bit of trouble explaining away if they do eventually get forced into standing.
Let the comedy continue by all means. We've weeks more of this hilarity to look forward to. :-D
You know they can't decide until Ed does- in year or so.
DeleteBoyack will be a slightly more competent, less tribal version of Lamont. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement, but she's probably their best bet right now. As caretaker leaders go, they could do worse.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not less tribal in the sense of Labour infighting. Her closeness to Murphy and her obvious willingness to do little Ed's bidding (as well as being Curran's chum which should please Lamont and her faction LOL) means she is anything but uncontroversial now.
DeleteShe's a placeholder unless they can't force Murphy to stand, because if he doesn't stand (and let's remember he's been trying to wriggle out of this job for weeks, not days.) then she looks very like London Labour and little Ed's plan B.
The most curious thing though is that if they can't force Murphy to stand then Boyack should be up against Findlay, yet Findlay STILL hasn't put his name forward. Why?? He can't blame Brown for that any longer since Brown ruled himself out for a SECOND time yesterday to stop panicking London Labour MPs from 'bothering' him. If Findlay wants it why didn't he just say so yesterday or today when he was asked yet again? Either he's a 'serious' (stop laughing :-D ) candidate or he's just there as the unions "stop Murphy" candidate. If his only purpose is to put the frighteners on Murphy then he's completely pointless as Murphy looked plenty terrified of the job as it is.
It hardly bodes well for Labour that Findlay or Murphy clearly don't have the balls to just stand without anyone forcing them to. After this complete and utter farce if either them do finally make up their mind to finally stand and eventually win they will forever be tainted as a reluctant and cowardly leader, be certain of that. Their own actions (or rather inaction) have made that inevitable.
Hard to believe that Labour could somehow make Lamont's poisoned chalice worse, but they haven't disappointed and managed to do just that.
I meant she's less viscerally anti-SNP than Lamont - probably less than any of her predecessors except McLeish. I don't know what intra-Labour faction she belongs to, and I doubt it matters much.
DeleteI know you did Keaton. True enough she doesn't foam at the mouth as much as Lamont and some of the rest at the mere mention of the SNP.
DeleteWhere she falls in the great Brown/Blair - left/right - Curran/Lamont - sausage roll/wee dug* factionalising will matter quite a bit when it comes to the voting though due to the amusing system SLAB still has in place. It will also matter when the inevitable questions about being a London branch leader come up. Something that will be unavoidable no matter how much little Ed and his London Labour chums want it to go away.
*Tribute to Ryan the infamous sausage roll boy who a good number of online wits have put forward as the perfect SLAB leader in the midst of the utter chaos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCBImu80bk
'Scottish' Labour - We have the sausage rolls you need and the wee dug to eat them for you.
LOL
Amusingly, despite her being the only candidate, Paddy Power have her at 16/1.
ReplyDeleteBoyack, someone MSP's will vote for, as she is well, an MSP.
ReplyDeleteAnd someone Westminster will vote for as she evidently gets along with them.
A puppet leader, but one we've come to expect from them. I take it by Murphy not standing, he is also basically saying they won't win 2015....he is ready and waiting to get a job in the Shadow Cabinet with a new Labour leader.
Incidently, just to hammer home hwe utterly useless and feeble the 'scottish' political media are, this is quite obviously one of THE most extraordinary meltdowns and internal political civil wars ever seen here, but you certainly wouldn't know that from the pathetic coverage thus far.
ReplyDeleteMost political journalists would dream of covering a story like this since it has huge ramifications, infighting, big names, policy conflicts, personal vendettas the lot. Yet the BBC and STV seem to think because it's 'scottish' Labour it would somehow be impolite to intrude on private grief.
Imagine just for a second if it was the Labour leadership in London and they couldn't find a credible candidate to replace little Ed while there was threats, cajoling, 'sweeteners' and god knows what else going on in the background? You think wee Nick Robinson would try to draw a discrete veil over it all? Like fuck he would. He would have every reporter on staff flooding the commons and trying to find out what was going on behind the scenes. Similarly, if this was the SNP in complete meltdown you can bet STV and the BBC would hardly be holding back and trying to put a gloss of 'normality' on it.
At least it's useful to see it confirmed absolutely that the media have no intention at all of dropping their pathetic bias in favour of unionist parties in scotland. So it's certainly more than just 'scottish' Labour who are making a complete tit of themselves this week as STV and the BBC keep proving.
According to a Lothian CLP Secretary Sarah was always the plan to replace Lamont. There is a group of Labour women led by Curran that decided Lamont must go and decided that Sarah will be Scottish Leader prior to the knifing.
ReplyDeleteThey were hoping she would be mentioned as a contender in the press but only Wings picked it up.
Murphy is totally supportive of Sarah. The reason he has gone quiet, is that they are gauging support for Sarah. If it's a goer then Murphy is totally off the hook and they will install the amenable Sarah.
Always the plan indeed. Riiiiiight. I know you are merely reporting the Labour spin Denise but come on! Does any off this look like it was planned? Unless the plan was utter chaos of course.
DeleteFor a start prior to the knifing the name in the frame was made crystal clear by Maigrit Curran who was busy stabbing Lamont in the back at the Labour conference. Twas Murphy of course and despite all the pressure on him even back then he managed to avoid putting his name forward. If Maigrit wanted Boyack back then it is inconceivable she somehow forgot to mention it to anyone in Labour as she was busy briefing against Lamont to the Labour scottish executive committee. You don't stab the leader in the back then hope your favoured 'contender' magically gets mentioned when she isn't even on the radar. When Curran was busy trashing Lamont to the executive committee the first question they would have asked is "if not Lamont then who?" We all know the answer she gave to that one, Murphy. After the conference there were also plenty of opportunities to get Boyack in the frame as the betting started and names started piling up (only for them all to run away hilariously from the job) yet still not a peep? Nah. Don't think so. It's after the fact rationalising by some in Labour made all the more tenuous by their obvious desire for Murphy to run.
Boyack was really our choice all along, unless it's Murphy who was really our choice all along.
Not remotely convincing I have to say but interesting to hear the Lothian Labour spin on it all the same.
Party uber alles.
ReplyDeleteA candidate was needed, due to the mirth online.
That and the fact that Murphy still won't put his name forward so a desperate plan B was quickly hatched by little Ed and London Labour should Murphy keep refusing the poisoned chalice. Boyack is that desperate plan B.
DeleteBTW for those stuck in the westminster bubble who still don't understand why Murphy might not be a such a great idea perhaps this will help explain things.
Butterfly Rebellion @Butterfly_Reb 19m
When offered the Europe job @jimmurphymp famously said, "at least it’s not Scotland." Scotland deserves better... http://fb.me/6N7wRzdNW
Penny beginning to drop yet? Even if he eventually finds the balls to go for it Murphy is a warmongering uber-Blairite with a HUGE amount of baggage. Murphy is so far to the right and beyond the pale for scottish politics that "no-brainer" McTernan thinks he would be a good idea while tories line up to praise him.
Of course one of the big reasons the westminster bubble twits think he's great is that they actually believed all the lies and spin in the likes of the Daily Mail and the Record during the Indy campaign while somehow not noticing that Murphy's 'tour' was a joke and a figure of fun long before the EGGPOCALYPSE! Just yet more proof that while out of touch twits like London Labour and little Ed control the show SLAB are doomed.
The Question I really want to ask Jackanory Jim is this.
ReplyDeleteYou claim to have avoided conscription to the South African Army during Apartheid when you were a resident there by moving to Scotland to attend University. However you appear to have become eligible for conscription in 1986 but did not show up in Scotland till 1988 or 1989. What happened in those two years?
The Wikipedia entry on Jim Murphy says "In 1985, Murphy returned to Scotland at age 18 to study Politics and European Law at the University of Strathclyde, although after studying at Strathclyde for 9 years, he did not graduate from the university."
DeletePerhaps you could also ask Murphy why he didn't graduate after 9 years at Strathclyde University.
I don't believe the entry. Murphy wasn't at Strathclyde until 1988 or at the very earliest 1987, there's a gap there and he has never explained it.
DeleteYet more comedy from Reporting Scotland as they start their report by stating as fact "noone would call Jim Murphy a coward" Reeeeeeally??? You don't remember the hilarity as the Eggman cancelled his 'tour' for a time due to the EGGPOCALYPSE! LOL Fucking idiots.
ReplyDeleteI notice the Eggman still hasn't had the balls to put his name in. Even the westminster bubble pundits (who yesterday were declaring it a virtual certainty he would put his name in today) are beginning to sound far less sure of themselves and their Labour 'sources' who assured them he would do so. For those who don't realise how these things work, they were told for days that Murphy was going to put his name in by little Ed's sycophants who were hoping the public pressure this would create would force him to do so. Now those pundits are beginning to realise they might just have been spun a load of old cobblers (the same thing happened when they were assured that Brown would stand by Foulkes and other Labour imbeciles) and may well need to cover their backs should Murphy keep chickening out.
Mike Pork
ReplyDeleteYou could be right and I do think if Sarah was the plan - why her name wasn't mentioned earlier. But it is not a bad plan certainly better than Murphy and I don't think anyone really dislikes Sarah
As you say certainly better than Murphy though that is obviously a very low bar.
DeleteIf you read her statement on standing it's pretty damn obvious she doesn't think there's much of a problem with things as they are in 'scottish' labour. Nothing about changing the relationship with westminster and some pretty telling stuff repeatedly talking about using the power that is already there in Holyrood as well as moving the debate on and moving forward. Which is not very subtle language indicating that she certainly isn't in the business of more meaningful powers for scots as well as appeasing London Labour and others who want to move the debate on very rapidly indeed from 'scottish' labour being a branch office of London.
The fact that she's pretty bland personally only makes her stances and policies that much more important in a contest like this. I've no doubt whatsoever she was crafted to be a passable Plan B for little Ed and London Labour but we aren't actually making it all up about there being a complete meltdown in SLAB. It's a fact.
Boyack might have made an inoffensive caretaker a decade ago but right now she's light-years away from what 'scottish' Labour actually needs. 'Scottish' Labour should have learned long, long ago that ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away but if they want to go down that road then they will most assuredly reap the 'reward'. Which is fine by me as I will hardly be upset as they continue to implode.
Her stance on more powers is noteworthy though as that's pretty much an early indication of how some in Labour hope to duck the issue completely.
They will not be allowed to do so whether they like it or not. You can count on that regardless of who ends up with Lamont's poisoned chalice. :-)
Not yet Denise ��
ReplyDeleteI think Boyack is a puppet of Murphy. They did the report together after the 2011 election. It would allow Murphy to control SLAB, while remaining in his trough at Westminster. Boyack is never a political leader in a million years. Her stance on more powers, as Mick has mentioned above, further suggests she is being controlled by Murphy. It would be very amusing if somebody like Neil Findlay challenges her, as the unions would back him over Boyack. I gather he is a supporter of Gordon Brown's. Brown and Murphy hate each other, so it would be hilarious to see their apparent proxies involved in a contest against each other. It would get extremely messy no doubt...
ReplyDeleteExactly.
DeleteMore grenades.
ReplyDeleteDavidson now giving Murphy and clique 'a doing'. MP on MP.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lamont-was-the-victim-of-a-murphy-coup-claims-labour-mp.25722918
Lamont was the victim of a Murphy coup, claims Labour MP
A SENIOR Scottish Labour MP has accused Jim Murphy of staging a "coup" to take control of the party.
In a scathing attack, veteran Glasgow South MP Ian Davidson said Johann Lamont, who quit as leader last Friday, had been treated shamefully by the shadow international development secretary's allies, who conducted a whispering campaign against her.
I have known Sarah Boyack since she was a 'minister' in the first Scottish Executive. Someone less like a leader, I would find difficult to contemplate. My impression of her was that she was an ideal foil for the civil servants because she spoke to script and did not go off-message.
ReplyDeleteAs Mick Pork indicates, what were the results of her fundamental review of the Labour Party in Scotland. As far as i can see they amounted to a sticking plaster.
Neil Findlay has finally jumped in to the 'race'. Wee bit of a hesitation wasn't there chum? You weren't exactly enthusiastic for the job, were you?
ReplyDeleteLOL
We must presume it's finally dawned on Findlay that Brown really did mean it for a change when he said No and wasn't going to rush into the 'race' and save Findlay from standing.
Still no sign of Murphy. Perhaps London Labour and little Ed will be content for it to be two non-entities scrapping it out. Doubt it though. Little Ed might have created a Plan B in Boyack but it's quite obviously Murphy he and Londond Labour want. If Murphy did stand it would somewhat tellingly get rid of the problem of a possible leadership rival for little Ed as his own popularity figures reach ever more comically low levels. just a coincidence I'm sure, eh, little Ed? ;-)
Ed can't make him stand though Mick....statement soon from Murphy apparently, just once he is finished his pint in the HoC bar
ReplyDeleteYou can be certain he's tried everything to force him. We'll see if the threats and probable future 'sweeteners' (arise Lord Smurph LOL) were enough fairly soon then.
DeletePerhaps Findlay was also told by the Brownites to finally get in there and preempt any decision by Murphy. Davidson piling in also points to them making it clear Murphy is going to have a wee bit of a problem keeping everyone 'on message' should he stand.
As they say, pass the popcorn, this should be extremely entertaining. :-)
It's going to depend on what wee nasty secrets his bosses in Westminster know about him and will threaten to disclose, whether he is forced to stand or not. As most of wee nasty secrets are now public knowledge, it must be some really vile stuff. If he does stand, hopefully somebody will find out the true reason why.
DeleteIt appears one of Clegg's amusing ostrich faction of spinners (Smithson of Stromfront Lite) is shitting himself that Salmond will stand in Gordon.
ReplyDelete*chortle*
Yeh, it looks like likely he will, but who knows. SNP should win in Gordon, no matter who stands. The majority of people in my area have no idea who Malcolm Bruce is and want more powers, Smithson again gets it wrong and tries to make it a black and white issue, when it isn't as we know.
ReplyDeleteLib Dems have a majority of 7,000, it's slowly been knawed at by the SNP, Bruce has a personal support, but we know that goes to the wayside AND we all know the Lib Dems are finished in Scotland if not all over the place.
"Yeh, it looks like likely he will, but who knows. SNP should win in Gordon, no matter who stands. "
ReplyDeleteTrue indeed chalks and you hit the nail squarely on the head with this.
"we all know the Lib Dems are finished in Scotland if not all over the place."
Yep. The yellow tories are going to get annihilated in scotland and Clegg's toxicity is, if anything, only getting stronger.
The interesting thing though is that there really hasn't been much in the way of firm plans. Just an expressed interest and some speculation that Gordon makes sense from a local perspective. Now, it may well be that is the case and Salmond will stand there, but, there's nothing stopping him form doing some polling elsewhere and having a look at all the options. In fact I'm fairly certain he will be doing just that. Prominent Labour MP's should start worrying if they see a sudden influx of activity in their seats. Which will be problematic for them as that is guaranteed to happen anyway with 82,000 + members very keen indeed to get a great many of them booted out on their arse.
I wasn't sure whether he should stand, but now I think it's very important that he does. With 20 or so SNP MP's, probably a lot of newbies, it would be massive to have his experience and knowledge there to help.
ReplyDeletePlus you have the added incentive of more attention on the SNP group with him in there. Good for everyone, Angus Robertson might not like it, but who cares. lol
Angus will be pragmatic. The truth is that if we do get more MPs then there will need to be experience and knowledge to help the newbies as you say. That means more than one person to help. Angus and Alex will be required.
ReplyDeleteTBH there's going to have to be a readjustment in the branches across scotland to the realities of a party with such a colossal scottish membership now. Going on three times the size of the UKIP membership and easily twice the size of the lib dems for the whole of the UK. That membership will need to be nurtured and encouraged and Salmond standing in 2015 is part of that plan I'm sure.
Angus will be pragmatic. There will need to be experience and knowledge to help the newbies as you say and that means both Alex and Angus as Angus is more familiar with the westminster dynamic right now.
ReplyDeleteTBH there will need to be a readjustment in the SNP branches all over scotland with the colossal size of the scottish membership. We're talking about a membership going on three times the size of UKIP's and easily twice the size of the lib dems for the whole of the UK. That means nurturing and encouraging all those new members so it's a fairly safe bet that having Alex stand in 2015 is part of that plan.
It's also vastly amusing the Murphy is STILL deep in his westminster bunker saying nowt.
ReplyDeleteThis is shaping up to be one of the most amusing 'leadership' contests ever seen in scotland.
Length of time between Salmond's resignation and Sturgeon officially announcing she would stand for leadership: 5 days.
ReplyDeleteLength of time between Lamont's resignation and Jim Murphy announcing he will stand for leadership (if tomorrow, as expected): 6 days
Come off it, Flockers. There is no comparison with Sturgeon, who was always guaranteed to be Salmond's successor. The official announcement of her candidacy was a formality. Murphy was genuinely dithering - you know it, I know it, the dogs on the street know it.
DeleteAnd yes, he's finally made up his mind, but isn't today the third day in a row that an announcement was "expected"?
@Flockers
ReplyDeleteI've got everything I can crossed for Murphy. God I hope it's him that gets the gig.
I would love to see Oor Eck stand against McGovern in Dundee West. An 8,000 majority is a biggie, but I reckon it could be done.
ReplyDeleteJuteman,
ReplyDeleteAs a dundee west constituent I would love Eck to stand, that said I don't think we will need him, not much love for mcgovern in dundee as he is largely anonymous as MP.
And Murphy it will be with London in full control. SLAB are broke; they need Ed to pay for everything. He who pays the piper...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jim-murphy-confirms-stand-next-4532160
The Eggman cometh! Let the hilarity begin. :-D
DeletePoor old Flockers is so wonderfully out of touch he thinks the complete and utter chaos around the SLAB leadership can be compared to the orderly and overwhelmingly backed transition from Alex to Nicola.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you had your head up your arse at the time old bean, but Murphy has been running away from this job since the Labour conference.
I too share Scottish_Skier's desire for it to be Murphy as for SOME bizarre reason I don't actually think a right wing Uber-Blairite warmongering Eggman will go down that well with the scottish public. Curious that so many tories seem to like him, isn't it? ;-)
Ah well, if he does eventually crawl out of his bunker to stand at least there will be no question of 'scottish' Labour being a branch office of London any more, will there?
LOL
:-D
Confirmed to bbc...he is standing....full interview tomorrow in the psuedo trotsky news
ReplyDeleteWhat are they doing.....ah well
We're going to need more popcorn
Starting to think now that Boyack was persuaded to stand so that she would split the anti-Murphy vote, thus aiding Jimbo while ostensibly stading against him. The London hierarchy presumably didn't like the idea that Jimbo would be up against a lefty who might actually win because he wasn't Jimbo, leaving them with a potentially troublesome anti-Trident, pro-devo leader. Boyack is an apparatchik drone, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteGreens ahead of the Lib dems in the YouGov tonight.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. :-)
Out of interest Mick, I've read some of your comments on here - do you support the Greens? I'm a Green and I find it a bit odd the way SNP supporters seem to be taking pride in our polling ratings lately. We're not the same party and beyond independence we actually have very little in common.
DeleteAre you really a green Ben? Because it seems very odd indeed for any green to be asking why there is solidarity and common cause after the Indyref where I personally encountered and worked with greens who were electrified just as we were by the awesome participation from ordinary scots we all helped achieve. I'm obviously an SNP member so you can hardly complain when I return the question to you.
DeleteOf course we don't agree on everything (James has previously outlined some unfortunate and fairly silly things one green spokesman in particular has said in the past) but we sure as shit won't be sad to see the greens overtake a bunch or yellow tories in westminster polling.
I've been a Green long before the independence referendum. The fact that you find that odd is part of the reason this issue irritates me. I've been campaigning for Green politics as long ago as the 1989 European elections (and through all the movement that spawned from that). For the vast majority of that time the SNP were as much a part of the problem as any other party - e.g. over the M74 extension that we campaigned against for years, yet both Labour and the SNP supported. The SNP could have stopped it and they sold us down the river.
DeleteDespite this I see SNP supporters on a regular basis telling me that we should all drop the campaigns we've championed for the last 25 years and jump on board with them over independence. It's a bit like expecting a lifelong Lib Dem supporter to vote for the Tories in 2010 simply because they're in a coalition and would vote the same way in an EU referendum.
We're not the same party and to the extent that most of us supported independence it was for the simple pragmatic reason that we're more likely to have influence in Scottish politics than we will at the UK level - although I also think we can make some serious gains in 2015 and a coalition isn't completely out of the question. Independence itself is completely meaningless to me - if the party system changed and we were suddenly more likely to have influence at the UK level (rather than in Holyrood) I probably wouldn't support it at all. I'm certainly not going to back a party that proposes myopic policies like slashing Air Passenger Duty. Do you actually support that?
Yeah and I've been SNP since I could vote. So what?
Delete"The fact that you find that odd is part of the reason this issue irritates me."
You seemed amusingly irritated already and can have no petulant complaints just because I asked the same question you asked of me.
We get it. You personally want to scurry back to tribal politics as soon as possible. I'm certainly glad most of my fellow members and most of the greens I know aren't as short sighted and small minded. We have huge Labour majorities to overturn and we're gong to be a touch busy to worry about those very few angry little fundies who can't see further than a couple of small hobby horse policies.
"Independence itself is completely meaningless to me "
Fine. Off you pop as your contributions here are laughably pointless then.
You aren't related to the infamous Osborne loving 'green' Neil on Stormfront Lite/PB are you?
LOL
Heaven forbid a Green supporter would care about Green policies. What policies do you actually support on the environment? I asked you whether you supported scrapping Air Passenger Duty and you ignored it.
DeleteAnd the reason I ask is that my experience of debating with people like you is that you never want to engage in the substance of policy because your only interest (to the exclusion of literally everything else) is the independence issue. You think the only way we can achieve independence is if we ignore every other issue and shout from a single platform. If you're not one of these people then feel free to answer my question on where you actually stand on the environment.
These aren't "small hobby horse policies", it's the sustainability of our way of life across the entire planet that we're talking about - which is somewhat more important than Labour and the SNP squabbling with each other. Are we going to care who won that particular debate 30-50 years from now when we're facing the full brunt of global warming? Yet you accuse me of being short-sighted.
I support whatever gets us to the kind of green society I want to see implemented. It's pretty simple. If independence helps us get there then I support it on that basis. If staying in the UK makes it more likely (and right now there is zero chance of that, but I say it to prove the point) then I'd support that too. In short, independence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Any Green who tells you anything different isn't a Green at all.
Rant way chum as I've no intention of rehashing the minutia of your small policy complaints just to please you with some tribal nat/green bashing. You aren't going to find your outlet for some kind of green bashing on here so you're wasting your time. I've too much respect for the actual greens who helped us and all the new green members who have joined since the referendum to get involved in some pitiful little tit-for-tat that serves no purpose but to fuel your angry desire to rail against the SNP.
DeleteYou need to wake the fuck up as there is currently a tory led government containing a huge number of MPs and even ministers who don't even BELIEVE global warming is real. While the kippers (who they may have a pact with in the future) have about as much in common with rationality and science as they do with friendly relations with immigrants. If you seriously think your bitter whining amounts to anything in the face of that then your posts are even more pointless than they first appeared.
Who's likely to win, then? I can't be arsed trying to understand SLAB's voting procedures, but I gather that Murphy's unpopularity with the unions and some MPs might outweigh his support with the membership? Kind of the opposite of what happened with Ed?
ReplyDeleteThere are a great many Labour MPs who have no love for Murphy but he's little Ed's candidate so they will swallow their pride and do as they are telt for the most part. Of course some of the most staunch Brownites will be appalled but will they restart the Brown Blair wars over Murphy? One or two will be only too pleased to have a pop and with little Ed's popularity at comically low levels there's always the danger this could get out of hand fairly quickly for London Labour.
DeleteThere is simply no way on earth Murphy can credibly transform himself from a London Labour climber of the greasy pole to the 'champion' of the branch office of London. Not gonna happen and you can be certain at least some 'scottish' MPs and MSPs have seen the colossal SNP membership figures and their polling tanking in scotland. So they might not be all that convinced that a right-wing Blairite like Murphy is just the thing to stop that in it's tracks.
Findlay is there as the unions "stop Murphy" candidate but London Labour and all the westminster bubble pundits think Murphy is a 'big name' and that will trump everything.
Somewhat timely then to point out that Nicola was speaking on the first night of her sold out stadium tour.
Ray Brown @raymondtcbrown · 3h
Almost 1 in 50 of the adult population in Scotland is a member of @theSNP @NicolaSturgeon tells Edinburgh. #SNPtour
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1I8mSXCIAA1ar0.jpg
Which is just a wee bit of a contrast to the Eggman's comical 'tour' shouting at passers by and a dozen or so people.
By all means let's see if Murphy can fill a venue in scotland like Nicola can if the westminster bubble twits are so certain that a 'big name' like him is so popular in scotland.
Yeah, not REALLY all that likely, is it? :-)
I think Jim Murphy is too right wing and in Scotland Labour need to move to the left to try to recapture the support lost to the SNP. I actually think he has decent political skills as well. As an SNP supporter I wish Lamont was leading Scottish Labour rather than Murphy.
ReplyDeleteMurphy's 'skills' have always been vastly overrated. Sure, he isn't quite as much of a numpty as Lamont but Lamont was still an MSP and Murphy exemplifies the out of touch westminster MP mindset.
DeleteOne of the Eggman's biggest problems has always been that can't stop plotting against his 'enemies' in Labour. It's why he and wee Dougie were the ones who first started the whisper campaigns against little Ed and why he got dragged in to the Falkirk scandal and ended up being demoted by little Ed.
Plonking a plotter and schemer like that into the roiling snakepit of a civil war that Lamont has left behind her might not actually be that brilliant an idea. As Labour shall almost certainly find out in due course.
If Murphy gets the job then Scottish Labour have ceded the left to the SNP and will move to the right of them. Strangely that will put Scottish Labour to the right off UK Labour.
ReplyDeleteThey are hoping that the fear of the Tories and the big majorities will save their seats in 2015 till they get re-positioned
They are indeed Denise. Worth pointing out though that fear of the tories won't be that great a trump card now that little Ed is less popular than Cameron in scotland. Bit of a problem for them when they will be running their entire election campaign on the simplistic lines of little Ed Vs Cameron.
DeleteThe labour majorities are indeed big. So was the hurdle to get a landslide in 2011. Labour also better get it into their heads that a big majority will not stop on the ground campaigns like they have never seen. I know of no SNP branch meetings (with the mass influx of new members) where a big Labour majority has destroyed the enthusiasm and determination to campaign and campaign HARD in 2015. Of course the SNP aren't going to overturn every one of those huge majorities and the members know this. They also know that at least cutting them down massively will put the fear of god into London Labour even if we don't win the seat. They will also pave the way for 2016 and a scottish election which could well end up being the perfect storm and the nightmare scenario for SLAB. Eggman or no Eggman.
Let's be clear, the SNP aren't a left-wing party either. If you want left-wing policies, vote for the SSP. Labour and the SNP are fighting for the centre, not the left. There might be a rallying around the SNP by the far-left in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, but more than likely left-wing voters will go back to supporting actual left-wing parties.
DeleteLOL
DeleteCourse they aren't. We all imagined policies like free prescriptions, free education, opposing the bedroom tax from DAY 1 (and not having to wait A YEAR on an out of touch westminster twit like little Ed swithering like a twat over whether he opposed it or not) opposing another fuckwitted attack on Iraq etc. While Labour lurched so far to the right they are currently joining in with the racist kippers banging on about immigration and triangulating on the tories on yet more austerity and hammering the poorest and most vulnerable with welfare cuts.
The SSP boosted their membership and their profile as well as the greens and the SNP so your amusing 'theory' just doesn't hold water. The fact of the matter is we increased the participation in politics massively and all those new voters and new members don't seem to agree with your panicky assessment of it just being the immediate aftermath as you shall find out come 2015. But keep telling yourself the SNP aren't left wing and this is just a temporary rallying round as right-winger Blairites like Murphy make absolutely certain the chasm between what out of touch westminster bubble twits think will be popular in scotland and what actually IS popular in scotland becomes abundantly clear. We are an actual left wing party and we've been in power and proved it while Labour proved it was nothing of the kind as the poor got poorer and the rich got richer when greedy expenses troughers like Blair and Brown were in power. Right now Little Ed is less popular in scotland than the cowardly tory PM Cameron. Scots don't consider us far-left but they know perfectly well we are left wing, they consider the westminster bubble parties to be right wing and hopelessly out of touch. Hence their laughable popularity ratings. Don't you get it?
*chortle*
"The SSP boosted their membership and their profile as well as the greens and the SNP so your amusing 'theory' just doesn't hold water."
DeleteThat makes literally no sense. The SSP increasing their membership makes no difference to the point that the SNP are a centrist party while the SSP are left-wing. I don't vote for either but if I had a choice on the economy the SSP are clearly a better option.
So many people seem to think "left-wing" means "free stuff". It's a way of organising the economy, not giving voters bribes. When the SNP stop prioritising a cut in corporation tax, when they stop proposing to slash Air Passenger Duty, and when they start advocating large scale redistributive taxation rather than trying to win over the middle classes and big business, then they'll be left-wing. They won't do this because they know it would abandon the centre ground to Labour.
"So many people seem to think "left-wing" means "free stuff"."
DeleteWould they be the same idiots who think it's clever to trot out Labour's attack lines on corporation tax mere months after the referendum?
The SNP have proved they have no intention of letting the right-wing westminster parties set the agenda by actions not just words. We balanced the budget while protecting the disabled and vulnerable from the worst of the bedroom tax. We believe dignity and respect for the poorest and most vulnerable is not an optional extra but a fundamental part of a fair economy and a just society. The landslide in 2011 and the polling right now should have proven that to even the most blinkered that scots actually respect that stance and understand it while those who pay lip service to it try to attack it are simply out of touch and utterly clueless about the nature of the sea-change going on right this second. Funnily enough I don't happen to think the colossal 85,000 + members the SNP now have are in any way deluded about where the party stands and who will best look after ALL of the people in scotland. Not do I think Labour's meltdown is indicative of anything other than a party who lurched to the right long, long ago and are now dealing with the inevitable consequences of that in scotland.
Ben : Fair enough about your own opinions, but you must know that you're not typical of the current membership of your party. The vast majority of Green members didn't join in 1989, but in the last few weeks. Most of them did so at least partly because the Greens are a pro-independence party. OK, those people have plenty of other priorities as well, but they're unlikely to be as ambivalent about the constitutional question as you are.
DeleteAs for SNP supporters taking satisfaction in the Greens overtaking the Lib Dems, I suspect we would have done that even if the Greens hadn't been part of the Yes campaign.
If murphy gets in, Labour in Scotland will split.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly possible. I can think of few things more likely to reignite the Brown Blair wars than forcing the uber-Blarite Murphy on 'scottish' Labour. Except of course if Broon himself stood. The mere fact that so many westminster MPs were desperate for Brown to do so in response to Murphy looks more than a touch ominous for the London Labour branch office. Nor does it bode particularly well for little Ed and his ever loyal shadow cabinet.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP are social democrats, i.e. just left of centre. The SSP would be democratic socialist, firmly left of centre as per the Greens (socialist-strong liberal). This is not 'British' centre as the media talks about but the global centre; the British centre is right-authoritarian since Blair.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Independence movements have much more success if they are centre as that is unifying, bringing in people from all walks of life bar the fringes. Too far left and they tend to scare moderates (this applies to any large deviation from the moderate middle). On the other side the economic right is not compatible with concept of a society / nation state as it is all about the individual.
Skier, would you argue based on that, that the campaign was maybe too left of centre? I remember Wealthy Nation when they first came on the scene and they just disappeared from all view. These were life-long tories, as well as donors, some even had their picture with David Cameron taken. I only remember one article in the soon to be shut Scotsman from them as well? Wouldn't be surprised if they got a bit upset about the rhetoric from Yes Scotland...
ReplyDeleteAye Mick, I think the writing is on the wall with them, Lamonts statement, call me cynically minded, was done as she knows full well that if she doesn't start shouting about London rule, then she will be out on her arse in 2016, obviously her own supporters probably voted yes or were at least sympathetic to the thoughts. For her to say she had no idea LiS was run from London is pretty startling, as everyone knows it.
There were obviously a good few people in LiS that voted Yes, but couldn't come out and back it due to the backlash that would happen from the Murphy's of this world. I was quite shocked to see Katy Clark come out against Trident for instance, she wouldn't say something like that if there weren't others.
It's now become accepted that if Labour wants to survive it must follow it's remaining supporters to the door of Devo-Max, with someone like Murphy in charge there, who is all about power being retained at Westminster, they are finished. The only option for these guys that want more powers akin to Devo-Max are to abandon ship.
I'd question whether the SSP are 'democratic socialist'. They have always been a top-down, hierarchical organisation which struggled to keep its fissiparous internal tendencies together back when they had significant support. The leadership treated the membership abominably before and after the Sheridan scandal and split.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in deepest darkest Islington there will be a focus group that will have decided that Jim, is just the man to revive the Scottish branch office .
ReplyDelete